Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site inuxi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!inuxi!hgr
From: hgr@inuxi.UUCP (Harold Roberts)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A simple question.
Message-ID: <237@inuxi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 23:26:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: inuxi.237
Posted: Mon Jul 22 23:26:14 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 03:30:15 EDT
References: <959@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Consumer Products, Indianapolis
Lines: 54

> Throughout the Gospels Christ calls himself "The Son of Man".
> Why?  None have yet given me a satisfactory answer.
> -- 
> Darrell Long
> Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
> University of California, San Diego
> 
> USENET: sdcsvax!darrell
> ARPA:   darrell@sdcsvax

I have read two explanations for this term that I like.  The
first is from the explanatory text of the Jerusalem Bible.
	"With the exception of Acts 7:56; Rv 1:13; 14:14, this
	title appears only in the Gospels.  There is no doubt that
	Jesus used it of himself, and indeed preferred it to
	others.  At times He uses it to express His lowly state,
	Mt 8:20; 11:19; 20:28, especially the humiliation of the
	Passion, 17:22 etc.  At other times it is used to proclaim
	the definitive triumph of His resurrection, Mt 17:9, of
	His return to glory, 24:30, of His coming in judgement,
	25:31.  That this title, Aramic in flavor, could bring
	together these seemingly opposed qualities is clear from
	the following considerations.  The phrase originally meant
	'man', Ezk 2:1+, and by reason of its unusual and indirect
	form it underlined the lowliness of man's state.  But the
	title suggested glory too.  It was used in Dt 7:13+, and
	later in the Jewish apocalyptic Book of Enoch, to indicate
	the transcendent figure, heavenly in origin, who was to
	receive from God's hand the eschatological kingdom (the
	kingdom 'at the end of times').  In this way therefore the
	title both veiled and hinted at (cf. Mk 1:34+; Mt 13:13+)
	the sort of Messiah Jesus was.  Moreover, the explicit
	avowal in the presence of the Sanhedrin, Mt 26:64+, should
	have removed all ambiguity."

The second explanation is from a commentary by Barclay.  Barclay
repeats the above explanation and then goes further to ask the
reader to look at the "humanistic" side as well.  Jesus had to be
very careful not to publicly declare that He was the Son of God
or else the Sanhedrin would (prematurely) have Him killed for
blasphemy; before Jesus could complete His mission.  Therefore
Jesus, being a shrewd strategist and philosopher, reused an old
term that both referred to the Messiah and to the relationship of
man to God (created in His image).  The poor Scribes and Pharisees
couldn't do a thing.  Note that Jesus does not call Himself the "Son
of God" until the trial before the Sanhedrin.  He even chastises
Peter, at the profession of faith and allegiance at Caesarea
Philippi, to not repeat the title (and relationship!) made known
to Peter by the Holy Spirit ("You are the Christ,...
the Son of the living God").

I hope this explanation helps you

Harold Roberts