With that same concordance in hand, as I stared at the biblical references, I realized that Christ is the one who applies the title to Himself, exclusively.
KD SAYS Ye do err not knowing the scripture "Pastor"
Ever read Ezekial in the OT?
He is called "son of man" 4 times in chapter two alone. 6 times in Chap 3
Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
How can we trust you after this learned piece of work?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are about to see the difference between a theologian (i.e. BillyT) and a preacher (that would be me, in this case). William would actually know where to begin -- I do not. But here goes, anyway.
Taking one's concordance into hand and looking up "son of man" finds someone like me in a state of confusion. I have always thought of the "son of Man" as applied to Christ as a statement of His humanity -- his physical birth, the limitations of an earthly existence, His suffering and death for and on our behalf. And then I read that He (as son of Man) sits on the heavenly throne, is the judge of us all, is Lord of the sea, has command of the angels and has the same relationship with the heavenly Father as does the son of God.
With that same concordance in hand, as I stared at the biblical references, I realized that Christ is the one who applies the title to Himself, exclusively. While Luke, for example, is busy establishing Jesus as the " .... son of God" in his most unique of genealogies, Luke's Jesus is busy expanding on the idea that He is the Son of man. While Matthew concerns himself with the virgin birth, his Jesus is adopting the notion of "son of man." Likewise Mark and John ----------- all four authors concerned that we see Jesus as "son of God" (making Himself equal to God) while it is Jesus Himself, not the Four Authors, who claims "son of man" for Himself.
If one understands the connection between Dan 7:13 &14 and the first century belief that this passage was more than a theocratic statement of one nation (Israel) over others (the four beasts), that it was a picture of the coming of the Messiah, then one realizes the cultural impact of this claim of Jesus ------ that, as "son of man" He is the Christ of God.
One cannot read Dan 7 without seeing something of the divine in the one who is like a son of Man. It is inescapable. And, as one reads of the comments and implications of "son of man" in the public ministry of Jesus, the divine is, likewise, inescapable.
The "son of God" and the "son of man" are NOT two phrases that neatly explain the two very separate natures of the one we call Jesus Christ anymore more than the two words (Jesus and Christ) can be fully separated in our minds. The Son suffers and dies and is exalted. Likewise for the "son of man."
The difference between the two, perhaps can be seen in the fact that "son of God" is an observation made by others [for the most part], explained and verified by others and accepted or received by Jesus. It is the truth. On the other hand, "son of man" is a claim made by Jesus Himself. In it, he does not claim the virgin birth, per se, or an incarnate existence per se. Rather, He claims the title and ministry of "Messiah" in the phrase "son of Man." It is not that He is a part of a larger collective we call "humanity," but that He is Messiah and has come to prepare and receive His kingdom. Where the Jew of the day was looking for an earthly kingdom and a very physical king, he was offered a kingdom of greater proportions than he (the Jew) had understood, a kingdom that included (hopefully) all of mankind in and through a Messiah who would and could TRULY deliver us all from the bonds of slavery ---------- whatever that "slavery" might entail.
For this Jew, suddenly, the words of Daniel 7 and the symbols of divine involvement become something very different -- suddenly he realizes that the apocalyptic tone of the passage IS REAL. That the Messiah is not of divine quality but of divine nature -- that Son of God and Son of Man are not to be separated ---- that the Minister of God and the Messiah of God ARE ONE AND THE SAME. He suddenly realizes that his Messiah is the Great God Almighty !! Praise the Lord.
The confusion I referred to earlier was ended the moment I realized that the phrase "son of Man " was not about "man" at all but about "Messiah." Of course, the incarnation and all that it supposes is inextricably related to "Messiah," but the emphasis is not the incarnation, but the Ministry. It is not just that God in Christ is our savior -- ,but that God In Messiah is our savior. God ties together the Divine, the Incarnate ultimately glorified AND the very existence and historicity of Israel as He brings together man unto Himself.
The Smithmesiter has spoken.
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! – Try it today!
