This was the title most preferred by Jesus to refer to himself and it reveals a wealth of information about his identity that is not evident from any other title, including the one of 'Son of God'. The reason for this assessment is the fact that in the plan of salvation God devised from before the beginning of the world, the sacrifice of the Son for humanity was in the mind of God whereby he was properly to be called the Son of Man. The Messiah was eagerly awaited by the Jews and the Son of Man is hopefully awaited by the believers for his second coming. Just as most of the Jews failed to recognize him when he actually came, could it be that we miss his Second Coming because of our false notions of the Son of Man? Since the Second Coming would be in glory encompassing the whole world, unlike his Incarnation, no one would fail to notice it on a phenomenal level. However, only those who are attuned to the ways of the Son of Man would be able to enjoy his presence as the ultimate savior. We shall, therefore, attempt to delineate from the Scriptures certain perspectives about the Son of Man that should assist us to be prepared for his Second Coming. We shall just give a quick overview of the use of 'Son of Man' in both the Old and the New Testaments before proceeding to the use by Jesus to refer the title to his own self. In the later Posts, we shall discuss the relevance of the Son of Man in the present world that is torn apart by scientific and technological progress on the one hand and utter poverty, illiteracy, superstitions, terrorism, ethnic conflicts and wars, etc., on the other.
According to the interpretation of the Jews, the title 'Son of Man' in the Old Testament stood for man in general, meaning humanity as such, without referring to any individual. For example, Numbers, 23: 19 uses it in this sense showing the characteristics of God and man or son of man to be completely opposed to each other. It is used especially with a view to highlighting the weakness and frailty of man before God as we have in Job,25: 6; Psalms, 8: 4, 144: 3; Isiah 51: 12, etc. We have this title used in the Book of Ezekiel 93 times mostly to remind the prophet about his weakness and nothingness before God. The uses made in different Books of the Old Testament have various nuances in Hebrew not taken into consideration by translators as we see from 'Ben Adam' of Job 25 and 'Ben Enosh' of Psalm 144. In many cases in the Old Testament, 'Son of Man' parallels the Acadian 'ameluti' meaning 'mankind'. The classical text influencing the use of the title in the New Testament is seen in Daniel, 7: 13-14 the imagery of which was made use of by Jesus to refer to his Divinity and Second Coming. The vision of Daniel about the Son of Man with power and glory was apt enough to explain the status of the Son of Man in his Second Coming and it was used by Jesus to elucidate his future role.
The title 'Son of Man' is used in the New Testament 87 times by Jesus to refer to his own self and it is never used by his disciples. The only probable exception is in Acts 7: 56 where Stephen declared just before he was stoned to death: " I can see the Son of Man standing at God's right hand!" It agrees very well with the understanding of Jesus about himself as Son of Man that has an application beyond the confines of this world. The unmistakable similarity between the death of Jesus and that of Stephen is highlighted by Luke from the fact that both entrusted their spirits to the Lord God in the case of Jesus and the Lord Jesus in the case of Stephen. Besides, both Jesus and Stephen prayed for those who executed them so that the Lord may not hold their sin against them committed out of ignorance. Thus Stephen was presented by Luke as most suitable to have the vision of the Son of Man with whom he was thoroughly identified. Why Stephen alone was granted this vision when there were Apostles and disciples who followed closely in the footsteps of Jesus and were identified with the Son of Man may be understood as follows. Being the very first martyr for faith in Jesus Christ, Stephen's vision was a need of the hour for the faithful to be strengthened in their faith and that too in the everlasting form of the Son of Man. It is, therefore, not necessary to have the same kind of vision by everyone who is identified with Jesus through their life, according to the principle of the economy of salvation.
Before discussing in some detail the use of the title by Jesus, we may note here how it was generally understood in the New Testament. If we look at the title as specifically applied to Jesus, we can see that it contained in its use the weight of both his divinity and his humanity. We may examine here just one instance where the title 'Son of Man' conveys meaning beyond the ordinary use of it by anyone till then. The instance is narrated by Matthew in 26: 63-64 where the Chief Priest solemnly admonishes Jesus in the name of the living God to tell them whether he was the Messiah the Son of God. Jesus did not reply him with a simple'yes' or 'no', although that was the kind of reply we are instructed to give to any question, but referred to what was going to happen in the future with a reference to the glory of the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God. The reason why Jesus deflected from his own instruction to reply directly to any question, branding any other mode as coming from the Evil One is that the question here referred to ultimate realities the answer to which could be verified as true only in the Last Judgement.
As a preparation for considering the use made by Jesus of the title, it would be appropriate to place the question in perspective. For this purpose we shall keep in mind the chapter 5 of Paul's Letter to the Romans. Paul discusses in this chapter the contrast between Adam and Jesus Christ in as far as they contributed to the plan of salvation devised by God. Sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience of God's command and through sin death pervaded the whole human race. "But God's act of grace is out of all proportion to Adam's wrongdoing. For if the wrongdoing of that one man brought death upon so many, its effect is vastly exceeded by the grace of God and the gift that came to so many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ (Romans, 5:15). What we must keep in mind in this context is that while the effect of sin of the first Adam is very active and visible in the world even now, the effect of the grace brought by the second Adam, Jesus Christ, seems to subdued and invisible. This being the case, how can we claim as Paul does that the second Adam's act is far stronger and effective than the sin introduced into the world by the first Adam? The answer to this dilemma is to be seen in the reality and role of the Son of Man in the sense that once we grasp the same the way Jesus applied it to his own self, we should be able to see what Paul meant to convey to us It is, therefore, essential to look at the title 'Son of Man' the way Jesus did in his discourses and teaching as well as in his very life, death, glorification and his expected second coming.
According to the interpretation of the Jews, the title 'Son of Man' in the Old Testament stood for man in general, meaning humanity as such, without referring to any individual. For example, Numbers, 23: 19 uses it in this sense showing the characteristics of God and man or son of man to be completely opposed to each other. It is used especially with a view to highlighting the weakness and frailty of man before God as we have in Job,25: 6; Psalms, 8: 4, 144: 3; Isiah 51: 12, etc. We have this title used in the Book of Ezekiel 93 times mostly to remind the prophet about his weakness and nothingness before God. The uses made in different Books of the Old Testament have various nuances in Hebrew not taken into consideration by translators as we see from 'Ben Adam' of Job 25 and 'Ben Enosh' of Psalm 144. In many cases in the Old Testament, 'Son of Man' parallels the Acadian 'ameluti' meaning 'mankind'. The classical text influencing the use of the title in the New Testament is seen in Daniel, 7: 13-14 the imagery of which was made use of by Jesus to refer to his Divinity and Second Coming. The vision of Daniel about the Son of Man with power and glory was apt enough to explain the status of the Son of Man in his Second Coming and it was used by Jesus to elucidate his future role.
The title 'Son of Man' is used in the New Testament 87 times by Jesus to refer to his own self and it is never used by his disciples. The only probable exception is in Acts 7: 56 where Stephen declared just before he was stoned to death: " I can see the Son of Man standing at God's right hand!" It agrees very well with the understanding of Jesus about himself as Son of Man that has an application beyond the confines of this world. The unmistakable similarity between the death of Jesus and that of Stephen is highlighted by Luke from the fact that both entrusted their spirits to the Lord God in the case of Jesus and the Lord Jesus in the case of Stephen. Besides, both Jesus and Stephen prayed for those who executed them so that the Lord may not hold their sin against them committed out of ignorance. Thus Stephen was presented by Luke as most suitable to have the vision of the Son of Man with whom he was thoroughly identified. Why Stephen alone was granted this vision when there were Apostles and disciples who followed closely in the footsteps of Jesus and were identified with the Son of Man may be understood as follows. Being the very first martyr for faith in Jesus Christ, Stephen's vision was a need of the hour for the faithful to be strengthened in their faith and that too in the everlasting form of the Son of Man. It is, therefore, not necessary to have the same kind of vision by everyone who is identified with Jesus through their life, according to the principle of the economy of salvation.
Before discussing in some detail the use of the title by Jesus, we may note here how it was generally understood in the New Testament. If we look at the title as specifically applied to Jesus, we can see that it contained in its use the weight of both his divinity and his humanity. We may examine here just one instance where the title 'Son of Man' conveys meaning beyond the ordinary use of it by anyone till then. The instance is narrated by Matthew in 26: 63-64 where the Chief Priest solemnly admonishes Jesus in the name of the living God to tell them whether he was the Messiah the Son of God. Jesus did not reply him with a simple'yes' or 'no', although that was the kind of reply we are instructed to give to any question, but referred to what was going to happen in the future with a reference to the glory of the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God. The reason why Jesus deflected from his own instruction to reply directly to any question, branding any other mode as coming from the Evil One is that the question here referred to ultimate realities the answer to which could be verified as true only in the Last Judgement.
As a preparation for considering the use made by Jesus of the title, it would be appropriate to place the question in perspective. For this purpose we shall keep in mind the chapter 5 of Paul's Letter to the Romans. Paul discusses in this chapter the contrast between Adam and Jesus Christ in as far as they contributed to the plan of salvation devised by God. Sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience of God's command and through sin death pervaded the whole human race. "But God's act of grace is out of all proportion to Adam's wrongdoing. For if the wrongdoing of that one man brought death upon so many, its effect is vastly exceeded by the grace of God and the gift that came to so many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ (Romans, 5:15). What we must keep in mind in this context is that while the effect of sin of the first Adam is very active and visible in the world even now, the effect of the grace brought by the second Adam, Jesus Christ, seems to subdued and invisible. This being the case, how can we claim as Paul does that the second Adam's act is far stronger and effective than the sin introduced into the world by the first Adam? The answer to this dilemma is to be seen in the reality and role of the Son of Man in the sense that once we grasp the same the way Jesus applied it to his own self, we should be able to see what Paul meant to convey to us It is, therefore, essential to look at the title 'Son of Man' the way Jesus did in his discourses and teaching as well as in his very life, death, glorification and his expected second coming.
No comments:
Post a Comment