The message of the Son of man

Front matter

THE MESSAGE

OF

THE SON OF MAN

Part I Chapter Page

I Ezekiel, why called “son of man” . . 3

II “The son of man” in the Eighth Psalm . 6

III “One like unto a son of man” in Daniel ii

IV “The Son of man” not a Messianic title

before Christian times .... 15

V “Son of man” and “Son of God” . . 24

VI “More than the sons of man” in Isaiah . 31

VII “The Son of man” having “authority” . 35

VIII “The Son of man” to be despised and to

“suffer” . 39

IX “The Son of man” to be “raised up” . 47

X “On the third day” . 56

XI “The Son of man coming” with “angels,”

“clouds,” and “power” .... 61

XII “The Son of man” in “glory” ... 68 xxi

CONTENTS

Part II Chapter Page

I Jesus and the Temple . 73

II The Builder . 81

III Building on the Rock . 86

IV Building with authority .... 91

V The Servant, Ransom, and Sacrifice . . 98

VI The Conqueror . 103

VII The Judge and the Paraclete ... 108

VIII The Exorcist as described by Mark . . 116

IX The Person and the Spirit as described

by John . 119

X Postscript. On the limits of this investi¬

gation . 125

Passages in the gospels illustrating the meaning

OF “THE SON OF MAN” 1 33

XXII

PART I

Chapter I Ezekiel, Why Called “son Of Man ”

“ SON of man ” is not infrequently used generically or indefinitely in the Old Testament, as in the words “ What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?” But individually and definitely, no one is called “son of man ” in the Old Testament except Ezekiel, nearly a hundred times, and Daniel, once.

There are some remarkable parallelisms between Ezekiel and Jesus. The heavens are said to have been “ opened ” for both. The Spirit came to both. Ezekiel was carried to Jerusalem and back ; and was afterwards set down on a mountain. Jesus, too, in the Temptation, was carried to Jerusalem and afterwards to the top of a mountain. Ezekiel predicts the destruction of the temple then standing and the construction of a new one. So does Jesus.

In all these respects Ezekiel stands alone among the Hebrew prophets. He also stands alone, not of course in the mention of God’s Spirit, but in the emphasis that he lays on the One Spirit that animates every part of the Chariot of the Universe, and on the need of a “new heart” and “new spirit ” (expressions peculiar to him) which must be imparted to Israel.

Other resemblances might be mentioned less important, or less certain, as, for example, the fact — a fact at least in Origen’s opinion, for which there is much to be said — that

Ezekiel, like Jesus, began to prophesy in the official “thirtieth year,” and the undisputed fact that Ezekiel is bidden to “ bear the iniquity” of Judah. But the parallelisms previously mentioned suffice to make it probable that in assuming the self-appellation of “son of man,” Jesus had in view some¬ thing of a spiritual nature common to Him and to Ezekiel alone among the prophets.

Two explanations were given in ancient times of the reason why Ezekiel was called “ son of adam ” — for that is the exact phrase, ben adam. One was, that it was intended to teach the prophet modesty, as much as to say, “Be not puffed up by thy visions, for thou art but a son of adam , who is himself the son of adamah , that is, earth.”

Another was, that it was intended to encourage the prophet to stand up for Humanity against the non-human powers, by saying to him, in effect, when he fell prostrate on the ground, “ Though thou art a son of man (adam, that is, Adam, earthy man) yet thou art also made in the image, and gifted with the spirit, of One like a man (adam) whom thou hast seen above. He- is not of earth, but rides upon the throne in the heaven of heavens controlling the Beasts, the Living Creatures, and impressing even upon them the influence of ‘ the likeness of a man (adam)! He is guiding the universe to His fore-ordained fulfilment. His son art thou. He is with thee. Therefore be strong, son of adam, stand upon thy feet.”

This second explanation accords best with the prophetic precedents of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Both of these need, and receive, encouragement, not rebuke or discouragement, before they set out on their several missions. So, too, when Daniel is affrighted and falls on his face, he is encouraged with the words, “Understand, O son of adam.”

It is true that “ the son of adam ” is sometimes used in Biblical passages that describe man’s weakness and imperfec¬ tion when he departs from God or differs from God. Indeed it is used by Balaam and by the profane friends of Job in a positively bad sense. But this does not represent the fundamental Hebrew theology, in which “ adam ” and “ the son of adam ” are regarded as God’s creatures created in His image and for His glory, and destined to be conformed to His likeness.

Was it from Ezekiel that Paul borrowed his conception of the Messiah as “the Last Adam” and “the Second Man,” which, though but once definitely mentioned, appears else¬ where as “the One Man” and “the New Man,” sometimes as a Person, sometimes as a Body, or Church, sometimes as a spiritual atmosphere, or Spirit? Nothing like this can be found in Jewish literature till the Middle Ages. Whence, then, did Paul derive it, if not from Ezekiel ?

This cannot be fully discussed here. But the most reasonable conclusion seems to be that he derived it, not from Ezekiel directly, but from Ezekiel indirectly, coming to him through Christian tradition (or through express revela¬ tion as in the case of the Eucharist) about the meaning of Christ’s self-appellation “ Son of Man,” probably in the form “Son of Adam,” of which he, the Apostle of the Gentiles, that is to say, of the sons of Adam, would be quick to realise the significance1.

1 For references to passages quoted in the text, see the Notes at the end of the volume.

The evidence here summarised will be given more fully and with foot¬ notes of a technical character, in a treatise now in the press, entitled The Son of Man , as explained on p. xx of Preface.

Chapter II “the Son Of Man” In The Eighth Psalm

The book of Genesis describes Adam and Eve as succumbing to the temptation of the serpent although they had been created to have “ dominion ” over every living thing that moves on the earth. But there is added a mysterious prediction that their offspring shall in some way bring retribution on the serpent. That implied a future and more complete “ dominion ” of the sons of Adam.

Isaiah speaks of “a little child” as leading the wild beasts. That, if not taken as mere hyperbole, might mean that the Child, Israel, would convert the Gentiles to the religion of Jehovah, or else that the Child, that is, Humanity, would ulti¬ mately obtain the dominion over the Beast in human nature.

The eighth Psalm seems to blend literal with allegorical poetry in its description of this dominion. The Psalmist appears to have been meditating on God’s loving-kindness towards His last-created offspring, Man, externally and superficially weak, and more helpless than the beasts, yet so fashioned — by God’s mysterious shaping of the inward parts, the heart and the brain — that he has attained dominion over the strongest of the brute creation. Full of this thought, he exclaims, “Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth, who hast set thy glory above the heavens ! Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou established strength, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.”

It will be remembered that Jesus, in Matthew’s account of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, quotes some of these last words. Also, according to Luke as well as Matthew, He thanks God for revealing the truths of the gospel to “ babes.” And it is needless to dwell on the prominence that He gave to “ little ones,” and to the need of becoming as “ little children ” in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

These facts should induce us to attach additional im¬ portance to the Psalmist’s next words from the Christian point of view, “ When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained ; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of adam ( ben adam ) that thou visitest him ? ”

We are familiar with such questionings in modern times. They are based on the tendency, innate in our lower nature, to think that God must attach to material vastness or force the same importance that we attach to it. We need to be constantly reminded of Elijah’s lesson, going out of the cave of our individual darkness into the presence of the Lord of the Universe, and learning over again that the Lord is “ not in the earthquake ” and “ not in the fire,” but that He speaks through a “ still small voice.”

Jewish comments on this Psalm represent jealous angels as uttering this exclamation “ What is man ? ” and as com¬ plaining that man has been unfairly favoured and placed above them. The Psalm recognises that human “strength,” when developed by God out of the human weakness of babes and sucklings, is a part of the glory of the Most High.

So Paul, under sore trial, declares that he will “ glory in his weaknesses,” because he has heard the voice of God saying to him “ The power [i.e. the Power of God] is accomplished in weakness.” Also the Epistle to the Hebrews says of the heroes of Israel, “ Out of weakness they were made powerful.” The same Epistle takes the “ dominion ” of “ the son of man,” mentioned in this Psalm, as destined to be fulfilled in

Christ, although some of the expressions are manifestly terrestrial : “ Thou hast made him but little lower than God (Elohim) and crownest him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands ; thou hast put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.”

The nature of this dominion over “ the beasts of the field ” (as distinct from “ sheep and oxen ”) is not here clearly defined. But another Psalm says, “ He shall give his angels charge over thee to keep thee in all thy ways... thou shalt tread upo?i the lion and the adder , the young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under feetd Apparently God makes this promise to the man, whoever he is, who is in close communion with God, and who, as the first verse of the Psalm says, “dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High” and “shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.”

This kind of sovereignty of “the son of man” over “ beasts” appears to be in Christ’s thought in several passages of the gospels. Luke has it — as we shall see, if only we recognise the identity between God-given “ dominion ” and “ authority ” — in the promise made by Jesus to the Seventy Apostles or Missionaries, “ Behold I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy d At the same time He adds a warning : “ Howbeit in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you ; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

The “ serpents and scorpions ” may be the slanders of the adversaries of the faith, as when God says to Ezekiel, “ Be not afraid though briers and thorns be with thee and thou dost dwell among scorpions .” But they may be also the various slanders and suggestions of the Devil (i.e. Slanderer) or Satan (i.e. Enemy or Adversary) in the heart of man, urging him to revolt from the Man to the Beast.

The Greek for Beast (in the sense of “wild -beast”) is often applied to a “ serpent,” and might be used for a devil, demon, or unclean spirit. Matthew and Luke, describing the tempta¬ tion of Jesus by Satan, omit Mark’s “ He was with the wildbeasts.” Perhaps they took it as a repetition of “ He was with ‘ the power of the enemy/ ” i.e. “ with Satan.”

In Luke, immediately after giving to His last-appointed Seventy Apostles “ authority to tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy,” Jesus turns to thank God for revealing the Gospel unto “ babes,” though it is hidden from the wise and understanding. And the ecstatic tone in which the Psalm of the Babes and Sucklings acknowledges God’s “glory” — “O Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth, who hast set thy glory above the heavens ” — is not unlike the tone of Luke’s version of Christ’s words at this crisis : “ In that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth . ”

In effect, Jesus here praises the excellent Name of the Father for exalting the “babes ” whose names are “written in heaven,” and to whom He has given power over serpents and scorpions. And we can hardly fail to notice other parallel¬ isms between the Psalm and the Gospel — not Luke’s gospel alone here but the Synoptic Gospel as a whole — parallelisms not only in respect of thought, but also in respect of what may be called technical terms of Christ’s theology.

The Psalm connects God’s “ excellent name ” and the “ glory above the heavens,” with “ babes and sucklings,” because of “ adversaries ” and because of God’s purpose to “ still the enemy and the avenger.”

First, as regards “ babes,” we find the Synoptic Gospel everywhere assuming that the “ excellent name ” of God in heaven is that of the Father. This implies that the “excellent name ” for men on earth is that of children. And on almost the only occasion on which the three Synoptists agree in introducing Jesus as saying “my name,” they describe Him as connecting Himself with “a little child.” Those who receive such a little child in His (the Son’s) name are said to receive also the Father.

As regards “the enemy and the avenger,” we find Jesus, in Luke — just before He declares that He has given His disciples authority to tread on “ serpents and scorpions,” and over “ all the power of the enemy ” — exclaiming “ I beheld Satan (i.e. the adversary) fallen as lightning from heaven.” Elsewhere Jesus calls His casting-out of unclean spirits, in effect, a casting-out of Satan.

These facts indicate that Christ’s doctrine of “ the Kingdom of Heaven ” or “ Kingdom of God ” fundamentally agreed with the Psalmist’s doctrine of the “ dominion ” of the “ son of man ” — if the latter was taken in a spiritual sense. For such a “ dominion ” implied a complete heartfelt recogni¬ tion, in Man, of the excellent Name, that is, the Divine Essence or Reality, the Fatherhood of God. This would make the human will one with the divine will, and the Son of Man a veritable Son of God, exalted “above the heavens,” and, by this exaltation, exalting the glory of the Father.

Chapter III “ One Like Unto A Son Of Man” In Daniel

Daniel, after beholding a vision of four winds and four beasts conflicting for supremacy, says, “I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit.” Then he describes how “ the judgment was set,” in which the dominion of the beasts was taken away. Then he adds, “ I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion....” A subsequent interpretation explains the four beasts as “ four kings,” whose kingdom is to be taken away and given “ to the people of the saints of the Most High It is important to note that, instead of “ like unto a son of man ” the Authorised Version has ‘ like the Son of man ” (printing “ son ” with a capital letter) and that this is erroneous.

In noting this error, and in comparing this vision of “one like unto a son of man " with that in which Ezekiel saw “ a likeness as the appearance of a man',' we must not entirely pass over the fact that this portion of Daniel is written in Aramaic. In Aramaic the word for “ man ” is different from the Hebrew “adam,” and the Hebrew “man” often corre-

1 1

A. M.

sponds to the Aramaic “ son of man.” On this point the reader will find a note at the end of the volume. All that can be said here is that the Aramaic form for “man” does not justify the rendering of our Authorised Version “ the Son of man.” The meaning, according to rule, should be that given in our Revised Version, “ a son of man ,” and this would naturally correspond to “ a man ” in Ezekiel.

But this verbal correspondence must not conceal the very great difference of thought between the two visions. Ezekiel sees one Person, Daniel sees two. Ezekiel sees a “ throne,” Daniel sees “ thrones.” This plurality of “ thrones ” caused sharp controversies between Jewish Rabbis in the second century. R. Akiba thought that an additional throne was provided for David, but was sharply rebuked by his contemporaries.

The unknown writer of Daniel appears to have regarded the Ancient of Days as representing God in heaven, and the figure “ like unto a son of man ” as the spiritual Israel, the representative of elect humanity, who is to be brought near the throne, accompanied by all the holy ones of God, the saints, clothed in the clouds that reflect the glory of the Sun of Righteousness. Reasons for this view will be given else¬ where.

In our gospels — the three, but not the fourth, which never mentions “ clouds ” — great confusion has arisen from the obscurity of the phrase “ with the clouds of heaven,” which is inaccurately rendered by the Septuagint and which appears in various forms in our gospels. Also the Revelation of John, describing “one like unto a son of man ” (where the margin of the Revised Version follows the Authorised in giving “ the Son of man ”) adds, in his description, character¬ istics that Daniel assigns to the Ancient of Days. But amidst these and other confusions it appears that Jesus accepted this vision of Daniel’s as describing the fulfilment of the Psalmist’s prediction, namely, that “ the son of man ”

would receive “ dominion ” from God. He also accepted Daniel’s view of some kind of corporate judgment passed by collective elect humanity made one in a Person.

This is distinct from Ezekiel’s vision and supplementary to it. Ezekiel sees One Spirit like that of Humanity controlling the ordered universe. Daniel sees a world temporarily possessed by transitory powers of disorder and violence. These he sees succeeded by a reign of righteous¬ ness when the Ancient of Days intervenes to judge, and oppressed Humanity is at last promoted to its place near the throne of judgment.

The two visions are complementary. Everything that grows appears to the eyes of mortals, in some stages of its growth, to be misshapen and imperfect, till it reaches what we mortals are pleased to call its maturity or fulfilment, that is to say, the stage we like best. And to us, as Bacon says, things seem to move calmly in their places but violently to their places.

Both Daniel and Ezekiel were captive exiles, and both might naturally have been expected to see the world out of joint and things “ moving violently to their places.” This, in effect, was what Daniel did see in his four separate visions of the four conflicting beasts. But Ezekiel, soaring in spirit to the heaven of heavens, saw the four in one Chariot, con¬ trolled by One Charioteer.

Jesus combined both these conceptions. The former, that of Daniel, received prominence in the Synoptic gospels ; the latter, that of Ezekiel, in the Johannine. Jesus sometimes quotes Daniel very definitely and distinctly, as in phrases about “ the abomination of desolation,” and about the “coming,” in connection with “clouds.” Ezekiel He does not quote quite so clearly. Yet there is good reason for sup¬ posing that His deepest thoughts (like those of the author of Revelation) went out to the latter much more than to the former ; that He looked forward, as Ezekiel looked forward,

3—2 to the time when there should be “ one flock ” and “ one shepherd ” ; and that He saw, and even more clearly than Ezekiel, the Chariot of the Universe moving forward in its unchecked and undeviating course.

Chapter IV “the Son Of Man” Not A Messianic Title Before Christian Times

Rabbi Akiba explained the plural “thrones” in Daniel by saying “ One for Him [that is, for God], the other for David,” where it is worth noting that Akiba does not call the Messiah “ Son of David ” but “ David.’’ This agrees with Ezekiel and Hosea. Ezekiel twice speaks of “ David ” as destined to be the “ one shepherd ” of united Israel. Hosea says that in the latter days “ The sons of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king.” Pre¬ sumably there would be, for Jews, little difference between “ David ” (i.e. the representative of David) and “ the Son of David ” (i.e. the second David) as Messianic titles.

However, for expressing this opinion, Akiba (as has been remarked above) was severely rebuked by his contemporaries. But the expression indicates two facts, not matters of opinion : — first, that Daniel’s Vision was not regarded by Jews in the second century as meaning a definite person known (in. the phrase of our Authorised Version) as “ the Son of man”; secondly, that it was then taken to mean simply one like a human being , who might be David, or Hezekiah, or Elijah, or a new Prophet, or the Messiah in an altogether new personality.

How is it, then, that we find in Enoch and the Second Esdras mention made of “ the son of man,” and “ that son of

*5 man,” in such a way as to convey the impression that a definite personality is intended, as we might speak of the Advocate, or the Comforter ? The quotation from Enoch given in the Preface (p. viii) supplies the best answer to this question : — “ It is because the writers of these books, following Daniel in his conception of one like a son of man who was to receive dominion, after introducing the Deliverer indefinitely as being like a human being , subsequently refer to him repeatedly in a brief form as ‘ the, or that , son of man,' meaning ‘ the person like a human being whom I me7itioned above! ” The necessity of such a condensation is almost obvious.

But perhaps, as my readers may not have easy access to Enoch, it will be well to shew them how the writer gradually glides into the use of “ that ” or “ the,” in connection with the title.

It is first stated that Enoch sees, along with God, one who has “the appearance of a man.” This is Ezekiel’s phrase. Amazed at seeing a human appearance, a mere man, in such a position, Enoch asks the angel accompanying him who this human being is, and, to express “ human being,” he uses “ son of man,” part of the phrase used by Daniel : — “ I asked the angel... concerning that son of man, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days [i.e. with God].”

The angel in his reply defines the “human being” or “son of man” by saying, in effect, that he is the man preeminent in righteousness and in the favour and election of God : “ This is the son of man who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteousness, and who . . .etc.” Then the angel speaks of him as “ this so?i of man whom thou hast see7i ” and afterwards describes in detail what “ he ” will do, but the title is not repeated till some way on, when Enoch speaks of him as “ that son of 77ia7i!'

It appears then that Enoch — and a similar argument applies to the Second Esdras — affords no basis for the conelusion that “ the Son of man ” was already in Christs time a familiar term for “ the Messiah.”

If indeed “ the Son of man ” had been a recognised Messianic title in our Lord’s days, it would have followed that, when He applied this phrase to Himself, He would have been understood as claiming to be Messiah. But He is not so understood. On the contrary, on the first occasion when Christ in the three Synoptic gospels assumes this title and declares that “ the son of man ” has authority to forgive sins, no one is described in the context as understanding that Jesus thereby claimed to be “ the Christ of GodC Nay, more, Matthew actually inserts a statement that the people glorified God because He had given such authority to “ men.”

No doubt, Matthew does not mean to say that the multitude regarded this authority as being given to all “ menC But he may have intended to describe them as vaguely feeling that Jesus claimed this authority for the “son of Adam, or Man,” as including others beside Himself. And this inter¬ pretation would be justified if He meant “ man in his right relation to God,” that is to say, Himself and those who could receive Him ; “Man,” as “man” will become, when conformed to the divine image of Humanity in which he was created.

Other evidence, in great abundance, points to the same conclusion, namely, that Jesus, in calling Himself “son of man,” was using not a familiar but an unfamiliar title, a spiritual or mystical term — like many other spiritual terms often used by Him — intended to lead the disciples on to spiritual conceptions. “ If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly,” say the Jews to Jesus in the fourth gospel. But He will not “tell” them this “plainly.” If they cannot be led on from accepting Him as mere “son of man” to accepting Him as “ Christ,” it would appear that He prefers them not to accept Him (for it would be a mere accepting in name) in the latter character.

Accordingly Matthew represents Jesus as saying to the i7 disciples, “ Who say men that I, the son of man , am ? ” and then “Who say ye that I am?” Now, if the first question had meant “ Who say men that I, the Christ , am ? ” there would have been no great merit in Peter’s confession when he answered “ Thou art the Christ.” It would have been a mere dutiful assent, “ Dost thou not call thyself the Son of Man, that is, the Christ of God ? And hast thou not often called thyself by that title ? Who are we, thy disciples, that we should deny thy word? Thou art, as thou sayest, the Christ of God.”

But as a fact, Peter meant “ Thou callest thyself merely son of man , but we feel that we have none other near the throne of God but thee. Thou must needs be, yea, thou art, the Christ, the Son of GodS He reached this leap from “ son of man ” to Son of God by faith and divine blessing, and because Christ’s doctrine had been daily preparing him to recognise the divinity of human nature when conformed to the divine will. But it was a leap. “The son of man” did not mean, before Christ’s time, “ the Son of God.”

Most clear and emphatic of all the gospels is the fourth, in bringing out the perplexity caused to the Jews by the reiteration of this apparently commonplace yet mystical title, which it will be well to print in inverted commas when uttered by them, because it is not a phrase of theirs but of Christ’s. It is in a passage toward the close of Christ’s public teaching. He has just said, “ I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.” The multitude answer, “We have heard out of the Law that the Christ abideth for ever, and how sayest thou, ‘ the son of man ’ must be lifted up ? Who is this ‘ son of man ’ ? ”