Post by Nate doesnt undestand on Jun 6, 2006 13:56:43 GMT -5
From Nate's website:
" Jesus the Son of Man: The name occurs many times in the Old Testament, with the simple meaning "Human Being" or "Mortal". It is used dozens of times in the Book of Ezekiel, who always has God addressing him as "the son of man." More importantly, it was the name Jesus used for Himself. People impressed with Him might refer to Him as "Son of God," but He used "Son of Man" as His own designation, probably because it emphasized His "Humanness" and His unity with mankind. He often used it in a "third person" form saying "the Son of Man" instead of "I." The New Testament continually stresses that Jesus was truly "Human" but also "God" in the flesh. It was appropriate that the divine Savior was One who identified with the people He had come to SAVE."
Here's real teaching:
Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.
Jesus
The Divine Claims of Jesus
The "Son of Man" Title
J. P. Holding
[Sources of the Title] [Seated at the Right Hand of God] [Not Found Outside Gospels; Not Used in Judaism at the Time] [Is It Just "I"?] [Did Jesus Not Mean Himself?] [Third Person References] [Corporate Reference] [Views of Son of Man in the Gospels] [Critical and Analytical Views: Representative Samples and Replies]
The original study of the "Son of Man" title as used by Jesus was little more than a survey of views in preparation for later study. Three recent studies on other topics have made it necessary to now update that previous work. Those two recent studies are:
1. The eschatology of Daniel and of the Olivet Discourse;
2. The usage the phrase "Son of Man" in Babylonian and early ANE literature.
3. The added meaning that is derived from the specific that the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of God, as expressed as well in later NT texts (like from Stephen in Acts 7).
It has become clear that these three issues are seriously intertwined with what Jesus was "on about" when he used the Son of Man (hereafter SOM) title -- yet it is in just these areas that most commentators on the subject are least informed or most misguided. In the case of the first issue, the commentators (whether liberal or conservative) are hung up either on a late date for Daniel and an assumption that it predicts nothing past the Maccabbean period, or else on the problem of trying to interpret the "this generation" passages of the Olivet Discourse under a dispensational paradigm. In the case of the second, commentators are simply, and shockingly, completely ignorant; on the third, it is simply not always noted. None of this makes it easy to figure out the key SOM passages. But once we do put Daniel at its right date, and once we know about the ANE background, the pieces fall into place remarkably.
Background: Whence the "Son of Man"?
Most commentators start they journey on the SOM with Daniel 7. Sometimes they look into the ANE to find comparable pagan divine figures. But somehow and some way, if we are to believe an entirely neutral source, they have missed the most relevant key of all.
It was as a result of my research on Zoroaster that I found the programmatic data, which comes from Ernest Herzfeld's Zoroaster and His World [835-840]. Herzfeld notes the uses of phrases containing "son of..." in the ancient world and what purpose they served. The phrase as used in Daniel is bar enash. (Note for certain skeptics: This is an important distinction from other uses of the phrase in the OT, which generally use 'adam for man).
What is the significance of this difference? The combination bar enash and its parallels in Old Babylonian carry the meaning of an heir or successor to royalty, or of a free man of the highest class. A "man" here is not just any man, but as we might say, "THE MAN" as in royalty. Herzfeld notes an example of this usage in the Code of Hammurabi.
Daniel was written at a time when this phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, in which the one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion of the sort that God possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context.
It is therefore clear that if Jesus is using the phrase consistent with its original meaning, it is a powerful and clear claim to deity. But before we take that further, let's look at some Jewish parallels that might substantiate the case.
From the Jewish apocryphal Book of 1 Enoch, in a section referred to as the Similitudes (Chapters 37-71), we find a description of the Son of Man as one who was given that name before time itself; one who would become a light to the Gentiles, will be worshipped throughout the earth; and will "dethrone kings and crush the teeth of sinners." [Chars.JesJud, 40, 48] In 1 Enoch 48 specifically, the terms "Son of Man," "Messiah," and "Elect One" are used interchangeably, indicating that in the mind of that author, they meant the same thing [With.JQ, 214]. The Similitudes may be later than Jesus; but they would serve to demonstrate the existence of a personal concept of the "Son of Man" at the time of Jesus or shortly thereafter, albeit not in a titular form. However, the matter is complicated by the fact that this part of 1 Enoch is only available in a late, Ethiopic translation. This material cannot be used decisively for any argument.
Relevant also is material from the book of 4 Ezra, written late in the first century. Here there are also obvious allusions to the character of Daniel 7 as a Messiah - although the words "son of man" are not used [Todt.SOM, 24; Hare.SOM; Case.SOM, 124].
Later interpretations, by rabbis and Christian commentators, of Daniel 7 are relevant, but varied [see Case.SOM]. Some saw the figure as corporate Israel; some saw it as Messianic. Little suggests that SOM was considered a title.
A considerable factor in Jesus' words is his comment that the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of God. This is far more significant than our phrase, "right-hand man" would suggest. In a study of the matter in Blashpemy and Exaltation in Judaism [203ff], Darrell Bock discusses parallels in Jewish texts and offers these conclusions:
* In the literature of Judiasm of the period, "a proximate seating next to God" i.e., in His presence) "might be considered for a privileged few, either a few universally acknowledged greats" (Moses, Adam, etc.) "of the past or the future eschatological figure of judgment" (the Son of Man of Daniel 7). But such honor "would never be comtemplated by the leadership for a humble, rural Galilean, preacher like Jesus." Being seated in God's presence (like being seated during the National Anthem) by itself was audacious, though not necessarily a claim to divinity, until we add:
* The right hand reference, which means in this culture that Jesus is claiming to be seated by God "in a way that shares the highest honor with him." In other texts, the "right hand of God" is the place where the splendor and majeesty of God comes from (Testament of Job), and the righteous are honored by being allowed to stand (not sit!) at the right hand of God.
In short, Jesus thereby claims the prerogatives of God with the combination honor of being seated at the right hand of God, and therefore asserts his divine identity.
www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/sonofman.html
Don't follow a blind man.
NDU
As the data stands, Daniel's phrase (bar enash) is found nowehere else in the OT, other than Ps. 144:3, which is the Hebrew version (bar enash is Chaldean) and where, spoken by David, it also likely means an heir to royalty. In any event, without the late 2nd and 3rd century evidence, there is no recourse for Casey's often-used argument that Jesus' hearers, hearing the SOM phrase, would in no way connect it to the SOM in Daniel 7. That is the only place other than Ps. 144 they could get it from in the OT.
" Jesus the Son of Man: The name occurs many times in the Old Testament, with the simple meaning "Human Being" or "Mortal". It is used dozens of times in the Book of Ezekiel, who always has God addressing him as "the son of man." More importantly, it was the name Jesus used for Himself. People impressed with Him might refer to Him as "Son of God," but He used "Son of Man" as His own designation, probably because it emphasized His "Humanness" and His unity with mankind. He often used it in a "third person" form saying "the Son of Man" instead of "I." The New Testament continually stresses that Jesus was truly "Human" but also "God" in the flesh. It was appropriate that the divine Savior was One who identified with the people He had come to SAVE."
Here's real teaching:
Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.
Jesus
The Divine Claims of Jesus
The "Son of Man" Title
J. P. Holding
[Sources of the Title] [Seated at the Right Hand of God] [Not Found Outside Gospels; Not Used in Judaism at the Time] [Is It Just "I"?] [Did Jesus Not Mean Himself?] [Third Person References] [Corporate Reference] [Views of Son of Man in the Gospels] [Critical and Analytical Views: Representative Samples and Replies]
The original study of the "Son of Man" title as used by Jesus was little more than a survey of views in preparation for later study. Three recent studies on other topics have made it necessary to now update that previous work. Those two recent studies are:
1. The eschatology of Daniel and of the Olivet Discourse;
2. The usage the phrase "Son of Man" in Babylonian and early ANE literature.
3. The added meaning that is derived from the specific that the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of God, as expressed as well in later NT texts (like from Stephen in Acts 7).
It has become clear that these three issues are seriously intertwined with what Jesus was "on about" when he used the Son of Man (hereafter SOM) title -- yet it is in just these areas that most commentators on the subject are least informed or most misguided. In the case of the first issue, the commentators (whether liberal or conservative) are hung up either on a late date for Daniel and an assumption that it predicts nothing past the Maccabbean period, or else on the problem of trying to interpret the "this generation" passages of the Olivet Discourse under a dispensational paradigm. In the case of the second, commentators are simply, and shockingly, completely ignorant; on the third, it is simply not always noted. None of this makes it easy to figure out the key SOM passages. But once we do put Daniel at its right date, and once we know about the ANE background, the pieces fall into place remarkably.
Background: Whence the "Son of Man"?
Most commentators start they journey on the SOM with Daniel 7. Sometimes they look into the ANE to find comparable pagan divine figures. But somehow and some way, if we are to believe an entirely neutral source, they have missed the most relevant key of all.
It was as a result of my research on Zoroaster that I found the programmatic data, which comes from Ernest Herzfeld's Zoroaster and His World [835-840]. Herzfeld notes the uses of phrases containing "son of..." in the ancient world and what purpose they served. The phrase as used in Daniel is bar enash. (Note for certain skeptics: This is an important distinction from other uses of the phrase in the OT, which generally use 'adam for man).
What is the significance of this difference? The combination bar enash and its parallels in Old Babylonian carry the meaning of an heir or successor to royalty, or of a free man of the highest class. A "man" here is not just any man, but as we might say, "THE MAN" as in royalty. Herzfeld notes an example of this usage in the Code of Hammurabi.
Daniel was written at a time when this phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, in which the one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion of the sort that God possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context.
It is therefore clear that if Jesus is using the phrase consistent with its original meaning, it is a powerful and clear claim to deity. But before we take that further, let's look at some Jewish parallels that might substantiate the case.
From the Jewish apocryphal Book of 1 Enoch, in a section referred to as the Similitudes (Chapters 37-71), we find a description of the Son of Man as one who was given that name before time itself; one who would become a light to the Gentiles, will be worshipped throughout the earth; and will "dethrone kings and crush the teeth of sinners." [Chars.JesJud, 40, 48] In 1 Enoch 48 specifically, the terms "Son of Man," "Messiah," and "Elect One" are used interchangeably, indicating that in the mind of that author, they meant the same thing [With.JQ, 214]. The Similitudes may be later than Jesus; but they would serve to demonstrate the existence of a personal concept of the "Son of Man" at the time of Jesus or shortly thereafter, albeit not in a titular form. However, the matter is complicated by the fact that this part of 1 Enoch is only available in a late, Ethiopic translation. This material cannot be used decisively for any argument.
Relevant also is material from the book of 4 Ezra, written late in the first century. Here there are also obvious allusions to the character of Daniel 7 as a Messiah - although the words "son of man" are not used [Todt.SOM, 24; Hare.SOM; Case.SOM, 124].
Later interpretations, by rabbis and Christian commentators, of Daniel 7 are relevant, but varied [see Case.SOM]. Some saw the figure as corporate Israel; some saw it as Messianic. Little suggests that SOM was considered a title.
A considerable factor in Jesus' words is his comment that the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of God. This is far more significant than our phrase, "right-hand man" would suggest. In a study of the matter in Blashpemy and Exaltation in Judaism [203ff], Darrell Bock discusses parallels in Jewish texts and offers these conclusions:
* In the literature of Judiasm of the period, "a proximate seating next to God" i.e., in His presence) "might be considered for a privileged few, either a few universally acknowledged greats" (Moses, Adam, etc.) "of the past or the future eschatological figure of judgment" (the Son of Man of Daniel 7). But such honor "would never be comtemplated by the leadership for a humble, rural Galilean, preacher like Jesus." Being seated in God's presence (like being seated during the National Anthem) by itself was audacious, though not necessarily a claim to divinity, until we add:
* The right hand reference, which means in this culture that Jesus is claiming to be seated by God "in a way that shares the highest honor with him." In other texts, the "right hand of God" is the place where the splendor and majeesty of God comes from (Testament of Job), and the righteous are honored by being allowed to stand (not sit!) at the right hand of God.
In short, Jesus thereby claims the prerogatives of God with the combination honor of being seated at the right hand of God, and therefore asserts his divine identity.
www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/sonofman.html
Don't follow a blind man.
NDU
As the data stands, Daniel's phrase (bar enash) is found nowehere else in the OT, other than Ps. 144:3, which is the Hebrew version (bar enash is Chaldean) and where, spoken by David, it also likely means an heir to royalty. In any event, without the late 2nd and 3rd century evidence, there is no recourse for Casey's often-used argument that Jesus' hearers, hearing the SOM phrase, would in no way connect it to the SOM in Daniel 7. That is the only place other than Ps. 144 they could get it from in the OT.