RE: "Son of Man"
I've always found it fascinating that Jesus almost invariably referred to himself that way. But it does make sense to me.
The term is a rich yet murky reference to a number of things in the Old Testament. It certainly must have been mysterious to the people of the time, who evidently would not have been very familiar with it, and I think that is one of the reasons Jesus favored the term. It must have created a kind of confusion in their minds that was productive; they didn't quite know what to make of it. And from that basis, Jesus could begin to show them some revolutionary things that were very alien to them, yet still maintain a link to some ancient traditions that he regarded with respect, but still insisted were outmoded, and that now something new and different was evolving from those ancient writings and ideas.
Testifying to the idea that the term bewildered those of his time is the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, the only one in the New Testament who ever referred to Jesus with that term was Jesus himself. His disciples always used quite different terms that were more familiar to them that denoted personal power, prestige, and respect (e.g., Rabbi, or Master). Testifying to the idea that the term is still bewildering is the fact that very few Christians, even those quite familiar with the Bible, will correctly answer this question: "What is the one term that Jesus repeatedly uses when referring to himself?" (try it yourself----ask that question to people who are Christians).
Daniel uses the term when describing a dream he had that involved a lot of animals, some of which were not indigenous to the area and Daniel would never have encountered them. Like much of the writings of Daniel and others in the OT, the description of the dream clearly contains a lot of rich lyrical symbolism (Chapter 7, v. 17):
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
But Daniel's use of the term was itself a reference to other writings, for example
God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he should be changed. (Numbers 23:19)
Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold on this. (Isaiah 56:2)
Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand: and upon the son of man whom thou hast confirmed for thyself. (Psalm 79:18).
But it was Ezekiel who really characterized the term in Chapter 2, where he writes about a conversation with God in which God addressed him repeatedly (about 90 times) as "Son of Man." In that passage, Ezekiel is receiving instructions in a very supplicant, humble manner from God, yet it is at the same time clear that God has selected him for an important role of service. I think it no accident that this whole scenario is very similar to the way Jesus often described himself and his relationship to God and God's creatures.
So there is a certain enticing but also profound ambiguity to the term, and Jesus intentionally selected the term because it signified so much. The clear connotation is that "Son of Man" was a humble, submissive sort of reference that Christ used to emphasize his mission of service to God and God's children in a manner that did not denounce his predecessors, but instead emphasized that he had evolved from them.
Also, I think in characteristic fashion, Jesus used this as kind of a way of maintaining self-deference and de-emphasizing personal power (along the lines of "of myself, I am nothing; the Father within, he does the works"), an antithesis of more worshipful, glorifying, power-centric titles that the people of the time favored, but could be interpreted as boastful or arrogant. And these are things that Jesus always avoided, partly because he knew they were completely discordant with the nature of the real relationships between God and man, and man and man.
T
|
