"Son of man" meaning as used by Jesus

[drums12]

I was reading this morning from the Book of Matthew, Chaper 9.  Jesus heals a paralyzed man, but interestingly, before healing him, He tells him his sins are forgiven.  This account could be the topic for an entirely different thread to discuss the possible link(s) between physical healing and spiritual healing (forgiveness of sins).  However, my purpose in this thread is to try to hash out the meaning of the title "Son of man" as used by Jesus in verse 6:

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

I wasn't sure what Jesus is meaning here.  Was He affirming His own Divine Sonship?  This is what I have thought in the past based on reading the Book of Moses.  Scholars seem divided.  Most evangelical theologians seem to believe Jesus was affirming the human nature of His dual nature (fully God and fully man).  So I found a wikipedia article about this.  Interestingly, the article mentions the LDS Book of Moses, and the idea that our Father in Heaven is "Man of Holiness."  However, "man" isn't capitalized in the Bible.  Of course that's not necessarily indicative either way.  Is this another example of a plain and precious truth restored by Joseph Smith (that God is "Man of Holiness" and Jesus was affirming His Sonship)?  Any thoughts are appreciated.  I'm particularly looking for any scholarly ideas and their references.  By the way, here's a link to the wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Christianity)

 

 

[bluebell]

Since the translators of the bible would have had no reason to capitalize the word "man" even if Christ had been saying that He was the Son of Man (because they did not believe that God is a man), i don't think the grammar and punctuation can help us figure out any meaning here.

 

 

[rongo]

I've been intrigued by Jesus' reference to himself in John 3:13 "the Son of man which is in heaven" --- a clear reference to Heavenly Father. Other Bible translations don't have this KJV phrase, so my question is what do the manuscripts say? Was this an interpolation by the King James translators? Did later editors make a conscious decision not to include it? I don't have the linguistics background to answer this for myself.

[notHagoth7]

"Son of man" is not just a reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

The phrase was also repeatedly used to describe Ezekiel, per his account.

I suggest also comparing Daniel and Revelation.

[cdowis]

"Son of Ahman" -- Joseph Smith.  Ahman is the name of the Father.

Ahman is twice mentioned as one of the names of God in the Doctrine and Covenants. In each instance, Jesus Christ is called Son Ahman, suggesting Son God and son of Ahman (D&C 78:20;95:17). Orson Pratt, an apostle, suggested that this was one of the names of God in the pure language (JD 2:342; cf. Zeph. 3:9; see Adamic Language).

Ahman is also an element of the place-name Adam-ondi-Ahman, Missouri, where the Lord visited Adam and "administered comfort" to him and where Adam prophesied concerning "whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation" (D&C 107:53-57; cf.D&C 78:15-16). Adam lived in the region of Adam-ondi-Ahman (D&C 117:8), and prophecy anticipates a future visit of Adam at this place (D&C 116:1; cf. Dan. 7:13).

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Ahman

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, cdowis said:

"Son of Ahman" -- Joseph Smith.  Ahman is the name of the Father.

Ahman is twice mentioned as one of the names of God in the Doctrine and Covenants. In each instance, Jesus Christ is called Son Ahman, suggesting Son God and son of Ahman (D&C 78:20;95:17). Orson Pratt, an apostle, suggested that this was one of the names of God in the pure language (JD 2:342; cf. Zeph. 3:9; see Adamic Language).

Ahman is also an element of the place-name Adam-ondi-Ahman, Missouri, where the Lord visited Adam and "administered comfort" to him and where Adam prophesied concerning "whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation" (D&C 107:53-57; cf.D&C 78:15-16). Adam lived in the region of Adam-ondi-Ahman (D&C 117:8), and prophecy anticipates a future visit of Adam at this place (D&C 116:1; cf. Dan. 7:13).

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Ahman

Beat me to it.

Also important to remember that "Adam" is a Hebrew word for man.
So Son of man could also be "son of Adam" as well as "Son Ahman".

 

 

[halconero]

52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Beat me to it.

Also important to remember that "Adam" is a Hebrew word for man.
So Son of man could also be "son of Adam" as well as "Son Ahman".

 

 

And together, what do we get?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, drums12 said:

.....................................................................................

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Christianity) 

As you point out, Matt 9:6 and Moses 6:57 are helpful, and the Wikipedia article provides plenty of useful scriptural comparisons.  However, some of the best and most illuminating citations come from 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch) 60:2, "And the Head of Days sat on the throne of His glory, and the angels and the righteous stood around Him"; 46:1-3, "And there I saw One who had a head of days . . . And with him was another being . . . like one of the holy angels . . . . This is the son of Man who has righteousness"; 49:2, "the Elect One stands before the Lord of Spirits"; 47:3, "I saw the Head of Days when he seated himself upon the throne of his glory, and the books of the living were opened before him, and all his host which is in heaven above and his counselors stood before him."   

In the time of Christ and earlier, the Book of Enoch was part of the Scriptural Canon (and still is among Ethiopic Christians and Jewish Falashas), and one can recognize throughout Daniel, the Revelation of John, and other books, the same sort of apocalyptic Son of Man imagery as found in the Book of Enoch:  Dan 7:9-10, "As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat . . . , and the books were opened."  In his book Textual and Comparative Explorations in 1 & 2 Enoch (Interpreter/Kofford, 2016), 72, Samuel Zinner calls attention here to "the angelic-like Son of Man, the Righteous One who as the Chosen One stands before the Head of Days and Lord of Spirits."  It is a Heavenly Council scene in which the Son of Man who will become Jesus Christ is endowed with power and authority (Dan 7:9-14).

As the expert translators at the United Bible Societies put it, the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:9,13, "is clearly God himself."   R. Peter-Contesse and J. Ellington, A Handbook on the Book of Daniel (UBS, 1993), 186-190.

[maklelan]

"Son of man" is used by Ezekiel to refer to himself as a human. The phrase was originally just used to refer to a human, but the book of Daniel refers to some divine mediator figure as "one like a son of man," meaning a figure that looked human. Later Enochic and other literature developed this concept into an early Jewish tradition about a divine mediator called the "Son of Man." The New Testament combines that tradition with many others in representation the life and mission of Christ. 

Some good literature on the topic:

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-messiah-9780567561152/

https://www.amazon.com/Enoch-Messiah-Son-Man-Revisiting/dp/0802803776

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/nickelsonofman.pdf

 

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, maklelan said:

"Son of man" is used by Ezekiel to refer to himself as a human. The phrase was originally just used to refer to a human, but the book of Daniel refers to some divine mediator figure as "one like a son of man," meaning a figure that looked human. Later Enochic and other literature developed this concept into an early Jewish tradition about a divine mediator called the "Son of Man." The New Testament combines that tradition with many others in representation the life and mission of Christ.

 

Reminds me of CS Lewis and Narnia - Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve.

[hope_for_things]

22 hours ago, drums12 said:

I was reading this morning from the Book of Matthew, Chaper 9.  Jesus heals a paralyzed man, but interestingly, before healing him, He tells him his sins are forgiven.  This account could be the topic for an entirely different thread to discuss the possible link(s) between physical healing and spiritual healing (forgiveness of sins).  However, my purpose in this thread is to try to hash out the meaning of the title "Son of man" as used by Jesus in verse 6:

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

I wasn't sure what Jesus is meaning here.  Was He affirming His own Divine Sonship?  This is what I have thought in the past based on reading the Book of Moses.  Scholars seem divided.  Most evangelical theologians seem to believe Jesus was affirming the human nature of His dual nature (fully God and fully man).  So I found a wikipedia article about this.  Interestingly, the article mentions the LDS Book of Moses, and the idea that our Father in Heaven is "Man of Holiness."  However, "man" isn't capitalized in the Bible.  Of course that's not necessarily indicative either way.  Is this another example of a plain and precious truth restored by Joseph Smith (that God is "Man of Holiness" and Jesus was affirming His Sonship)?  Any thoughts are appreciated.  I'm particularly looking for any scholarly ideas and their references.  By the way, here's a link to the wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Christianity)

I recall reading that some biblical scholarship considers those verses where Jesus might refer to himself as the "son of man" to be likely later additions to the text.  The reasoning is that we have other verses where Jesus is referring to the "son of man" as a different person than himself.  While he does refer to himself as messiah, (anointed one) the term "son of man" isn't a title that Jesus attributed to himself.  I know I read some of this in Bart Ehrman's book.  https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778192/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473880709&sr=1-2&keywords=bart+ehrman

He used Matthew 19:28 as an example if I remember correctly.  

Quote

Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus is clearly talking about another person in this verse and not himself.  There is more to this discussion in the biblical scholarship, and I'm not doing it justice, but I'm not a scholar either.  :-) 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Jesus is clearly talking about another person in this verse and not himself.  There is more to this discussion in the biblical scholarship, and I'm not doing it justice, but I'm not a scholar either.  :-) 

I don't see any evidence of that in the text.

Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Seems to refer to Christ and 12 apostles.  Based on text alone.
I could see an argument for it being Seth (son of "man"), but the 12 Apostles are presided over by Christ directly.  I don't know who else would qualify to preside.

[notHagoth7]

Any comment on David's take on this?

 

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I recall reading that some biblical scholarship considers those verses where Jesus might refer to himself as the "son of man" to be likely later additions to the text.  The reasoning is that we have other verses where Jesus is referring to the "son of man" as a different person than himself.  While he does refer to himself as messiah, (anointed one) the term "son of man" isn't a title that Jesus attributed to himself.

My problem with arguments like this is that they are circular. Like with Isaiah authorship, or E-J-P theories about the OT, the scholars have a predetermined outcome and only argue from that vantage point, considering as proven things that are matters of opinion. In other words, like in this case, the argument is that Jesus never refers to himself as the Son of man, because . . . Jesus never refers to himself as the Son of man. Only later interpolators did that. The evidence for that? I don't find it convincing, and people will agree or disagree with it based on their predetermined outcomes (I'm included in that, too). 

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

 Just How many more days....Years...Centuries  you & Humanity will wait in vain these type of shallow promises had no power whatsoever?

Edited September 14, 2016 by Atheist Mormon

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see any evidence of that in the text.

Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Seems to refer to Christ and 12 apostles.  Based on text alone.
I could see an argument for it being Seth (son of "man"), but the 12 Apostles are presided over by Christ directly.  I don't know who else would qualify to preside.

I seems like this verse contains two almost separate statements.  The renewal of all things is an apocalyptic future when the "Son of Man" will be "seated on the throne of his glory".  At this future time, Jesus is telling the 12 apostles that they will sit on thrones as well, and sit in judgment over the 12 tribes.  I think you could imply that Jesus as the head of these twelve will be on a throne as well.  I think Ehrman and biblical scholars are saying that this verse shows a distinction between the Son of Man, since Jesus is referring to the Son of Man as a separate person from himself in this verse.  

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

How many more days....Years...Centuries  you & Humanity will wait in vain these type of shallow promises had no power whatsoever?

I'm calling it right now.  I get to greet you on the other side when you die.  Just so I can see the look on your face. 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

My problem with arguments like this is that they are circular. Like with Isaiah authorship, or E-J-P theories about the OT, the scholars have a predetermined outcome and only argue from that vantage point, considering as proven things that are matters of opinion. In other words, like in this case, the argument is that Jesus never refers to himself as the Son of man, because . . . Jesus never refers to himself as the Son of man. Only later interpolators did that. The evidence for that? I don't find it convincing, and people will agree or disagree with it based on their predetermined outcomes (I'm included in that, too). 

I don't think its circular, I think you perhaps don't understand the sophistication of the methods they use.    These are peer reviewed scholars, and higher biblical criticism has been going on for hundreds of years now.  There is a lot of evidence, multiple independent corroboration, dissimilarity, and other tests that are used to determine the likelihood of any particular evidence.  

It seems naive to dismiss a whole field of scholarship like this saying you think its circular without attempting to understand the scholarship with at least a basic understanding of the methodologies.  The methods are sound, I don't think there is any serious disagreements about the methods within the scholarly community.  You might differ on opinions about specific evidence, or the confidence levels of certain conclusions and scholars will differ as well, but the criteria they set up is based on sound analysis, not on circular reasoning.  

Edited September 14, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Atheist Mormon]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm calling it right now.  I get to greet you on the other side when you die.  Just so I can see the look on your face. 

 

You can look At it right now while you have your vision...Once you dead......you are dead.....all nothingness.

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think its circular, I think you perhaps don't understand the sophistication of the methods they use.    These are peer reviewed scholars, and higher biblical criticism has been going on for hundreds of years now.  There is a lot of evidence, multiple independent corroboration, dissimilarity, and other tests that are used to determine the likelihood of any particular evidence.  

It seems naive to dismiss a whole field of scholarship like this saying you think its circular without attempting to understand the scholarship with at least a basic understanding of the methodologies.  The methods are sound, I don't think there is any serious disagreements about the methods within the scholarly community.  You might differ on opinions about specific evidence, or the confidence levels of certain conclusions and scholars will differ as well, but the criteria they set up is based on sound analysis, not on circular reasoning.  

I don't read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, of course, but I have read a lot of and about higher criticism. The bottom line is that there isn't really any good evidence (and yes, I am aware of the evidence they cite, such as stylistic, anachronistic, etc.) in my view. It all hinges around the scholars' agendas (conservative or liberal, higher or traditional). Inevitably, the march of higher criticism leads to acceleratingly less and less being considered "genuine" or "original" until we're left with almost nothing that is "genuine" or "original" --- whether this is the Book of Isaiah, or the words of Jesus, or whatever. 

What Dr. Charles Torrey said regarding this trend with Isaiah scholarship applies as well to scholarship that pronounces on what Jesus actually said or didn't say:

The result has been to make a great change, in successive stages, in the critical view of the Second Isaiah affecting the extent and form, and therefore of necessity the general estimate, of the prophecy. In the hands of those scholars who now hold the foremost place in the interpretation of Isaiah, the series of chapters beginning with 40 and ending with 66 has become an indescribable chaos.  The once great "Prophet of the Exile" has dwindled to a very small figure, and is all but buried in a mass of jumbled fragments.  The valuation of his prophecy has fallen accordingly; partly because a brief outburst, with a narrow range of themes, can never make a like impression with a sustained effort covering a variety of subjects; and partly because the same considerations which governed the analysis of the book have necessitated a lower estimate of each of the parts. . . .  The necessity of making the division into "Deutero-Isaiah" (chapters 40-55) and "Trito-Isaiah" (55-66), with all that it involves, would of itself be a sufficiently great misfortune.  That it is not possible to take this step without going still farther, the recent history of exegesis has clearly shown.  The subsequent dissection of "III Isaiah" is a certainty, while that of the curtailed II Isaiah is not likely to be long delayed.  We have here a good example of that which has happened not a few times, in the history of criticism, where scholars have felt obliged to pare down a writing to make it fit a mistaken theory.  The paring process, begun with a penknife, is continued with a hatchet, until the book has been chopped into hopeless chunks.

(Charles C. Torrey, "The Second Isaiah," pp, 4-5, 13).

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, of course, but I have read a lot of and about higher criticism. The bottom line is that there isn't really any good evidence (and yes, I am aware of the evidence they cite, such as stylistic, anachronistic, etc.) in my view. It all hinges around the scholars' agendas (conservative or liberal, higher or traditional). Inevitably, the march of higher criticism leads to acceleratingly less and less being considered "genuine" or "original" until we're left with almost nothing that is "genuine" or "original" --- whether this is the Book of Isaiah, or the words of Jesus, or whatever. 

What Dr. Charles Torrey said regarding this trend with Isaiah scholarship applies as well to scholarship that pronounces on what Jesus actually said or didn't say:

I can't fairly critique Torrey's entire thesis from this one quote, but I find it interesting that he sounds interested in preserving a particular view of Isaiah as "Prophet of Exile" and that he's concerned for the status of Isaiah first and foremost.  This shows his bias, and its not towards scholarship per say, its towards maintaining more traditional interpretations.  Looks like a conservative paradigm that he's applying to the scholarship, rather than a scientific approach that says, lets look at the evidence and make observations regardless of how that impacts any tradition or theological proposition.  

From what I've seen, there isn't equivalent scholarly evidence for this approach.  Understanding what is original or genuine doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with anyone's particular faith.  It might be at odds with fundamentalism and biblical literalism, but I fail to see how you can dismiss the approaches or equivocate all these different views as agenda driven.  

[rongo]

Clinical, objective, "scientific" higher criticism is a myth. You are correct that conservative, traditional scholars are also biased (a bias that I share), but you are incorrect that higher critics are disinterested and objective where conservative scholars are not. They are every bit as agenda-driven. In this example, while you are correct that Dr. Torrey was "concerned for the status of Isaiah first and foremost," the higher critics are concerned first and foremost that miracles and the supernatural (especially the possibility of genuine predictive prophecy) be dismissed as impossible, because --- such a thing is impossible. Pin them down, and this is inevitably what emerges. Higher criticism is also inevitably increasingly exclusionary ---- it seeks to exclude more and more of a text as "late" until there is, as he picture-esquely described, no kind of usable Urtext left --- just hopeless chunks and fragments. 

We see this in spades with scholarship that seeks to limit what Jesus did or did not say. Can you name any higher critics who believe that Jesus was resurrected, or that he fed the 5,000 or raised the dead? And that's what lies at the heart of their scholarship. Because their assumption is that these things are clearly not possible and never happened, they are late interpolations. Then they chop away at Jesus' sayings until the list of what they allow him to actually have said is laughable. Their reasons for excluding are clearly agenda-driven, not "scientific," and they aren't self-evident. That is, no one would take their evidence on its own and reach their conclusions without the underlying assumptions (yes, the same is also true of conservative scholarship). 

[notHagoth7]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

...he sounds interested in preserving a particular view of Isaiah as "Prophet of Exile" and that he's concerned for the status of Isaiah first and foremost.  This shows his bias, and its not towards scholarship per say, its towards maintaining more traditional interpretations....

 

Almost every promoted view, pro or con any issue, contains some element of bias. Our posts are not exempt from such.

As Covey said, "We see the world, not as it is, but as we are - or, as we are conditioned to see it."

It is interesting that the latter Isaiah chapters which certain academics claim were *not* written by Isaiah (but supposedly instead by some later impostor) are among the most prophetic chapters ever written. With such assumed-to-be-modern interpretations, the prophetic mention of Cyrus by name, and such things as Isaiah 53, are thereby swept into the garbage bin. Same with Daniel's promises. The basic premise appears to be that no mortal could foretell the future with God's help, because such assertions aren't reasonable, therefore such chapters must have been written *after* their fulfillment, rather than before. It was an argument initiated about 17 centuries ago by an anti-Christian writer in the Roman empire, who attempted to push back the advances of Christianity - but it is unfortunately also a theory that tens of thousands of Christian leaders (and many in their congregations) have accepted today.

So it is quite interesting, from my perspective, that two of the books most highly recommended by Jesus Christ (and which foretold his ministry with pinpoint accuracy) are high on the hit list of such academics.

Edited September 14, 2016 by notHagoth7

[maklelan]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

My problem with arguments like this is that they are circular. Like with Isaiah authorship, or E-J-P theories about the OT, the scholars have a predetermined outcome and only argue from that vantage point, considering as proven things that are matters of opinion. In other words, like in this case, the argument is that Jesus never refers to himself as the Son of man, because . . . Jesus never refers to himself as the Son of man. Only later interpolators did that. The evidence for that? I don't find it convincing, and people will agree or disagree with it based on their predetermined outcomes (I'm included in that, too). 

I can tell you thinks like JEDP are not circular in any sense whatsoever. It was actually originally developed by a French priest who insisted it strengthened one's faith in the inspiration of the Bible (he concluded Moses gathered the four different sources). Since then, Pentateuchal criticism has been critiqued and deconstructed and criticized and tested more than almost any other bit of higher criticism on the Bible. We have numerous examples of the progressive growth of texts with multiple parallel traditions, and we've had several scholars go through systematically to identify precisely what kinds of phenomena show up at the seams of those texts where we actually have earlier and later versions. They've then looked for those phenomena in the Pentateuch and applied the same rigorous and critical scholarship to determining what the evidence does and does not show (for instance, here and here). No one who has read the scholarship could possibly accuse it of being circular or based on a predetermined outcome. On Christ's distinction from the Son of Man, Bart Ehrman is a good example of someone who does not make the argument lightly (in How Jesus Became God), even though he knows it's not popular. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm calling it right now.  I get to greet you on the other side when you die.  Just so I can see the look on your face. 

 

you need to send him a picture of you so he knows he isn't getting scammed by some spiritual hooligan.