The Mystery of Jesus' Teaching about “The Son of Man”

Abstract

For centuries a mystery has surrounded the meaning of Jesus' term “The Son of Man” in his ministry, and today it is often called “The Son of Man Problem.” Studying “Son of Man” in all of its biblical references, and apocryphal usages, together with insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls, I propose a solution that the idiom means “Priest” or “High Priest,” but most especially “Heavenly High Priest” and is framed in the third person by Jesus because it is expressed as his destiny given by God—it is the Will of God. “The Son of Man” is distinct from Jesus own will, but is the destiny he follows. It is also the use of this term that caused Caiaphas to cry “blasphemy” at Jesus' Sanhedrin trial, who then sent him to Pilate for crucifixion, yet asserting that Jesus proclaimed himself “King of the Jews.” Caiaphas, knew, I believe, that “Son of Man” was synonymous with “High Priest.”

Keywords

Son of Man High Priest Destiny Priest Messiah King Messiah Circumlocution

About midway through Jesus' ministry, he asked his disciples this question: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” This question has never been adequately answered. The early Church Fathers believed the title “The Son of Man” had to do with the human/divine nature of Christ himself. Toward the end of the first century the titles “The Son of Man” and “The Son of God” became linked together as in Ignatius of Antioch's late first-century letter to the Ephesians (chapter 7): “There is one only Physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true life in death; Son of Mary and Son of God; first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.” By the second century the Ante–Nicene Church Fathers became even more convinced that both “The Son of Man” and “The Son of God” revealed that Jesus is both human and divine. Late in the century Tertullian reaffirmed this interpretation in his Adversus Praxean. In chapter 2 he wrote: “Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ.” The debate concerning the dual nature of Christ continued unabated until the fourth century, when the matter was resolved at the Council of Nicea.

Today, the speculation of the early Church Fathers is considered no longer tenable. In almost all usages of the term “son of man” outside the Gospels, the reference is to a heavenly being, and not an earthly mortal. This is so in Daniel 7, in the Apocryphal books of 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, and in the New Testament where the term appears only three times outside the Gospels. Acts uses the term once, and Revelation twice. In the Old Testament the one exception to this usage is in Ezekiel, which will be discussed at length below.

Exactly what Jesus meant when he spoke of “The Son of Man” has become somewhat of a baffling mystery among scholars. In fact, it has variously been described as “The Son of Man Debate” (Vermes 2003: 81ff), “The Son of Man Tradition” (Hare), or “The ‘Son of Man’ Concept” (Casey: 82–115) but especially “The Son of Man Problem” (Wright: 512ff). According to Wright an Oxford colleague “muttered in a seminar, ‘Son of Man? Son of Man? That way lies madness’” (Wright: 512). E. P. Sanders correctly analyzes the evidence in this way:

There were no hard definitions of ‘Messiah’, ‘Son of God’ or ‘Son of Man’ in the Judaism of Jesus' day. Even if he had constantly called himself by all three titles, we could learn what he thought of himself only by studying him—not by studying the titles in other sources. The evidence is that he rejected the title ‘Messiah.’ As far as we know, he did not call himself ‘Son of God.’ He did refer to himself as ‘Son of Man,’ but we do not know in what sense [Sanders: 248].

The result of this is the conclusion that “The Son of Man” presents a major dilemma for the exegete. This is especially so since it is presumed that Jesus spoke of The Son of Man in Aramaic rather than the Greek of the New Testament.

Casey (passim) has done a comprehensive study and comparison of the three usages for The Son of Man, in Greek, ho huios tou anthropou, in Aramaic, bar enash(e), and in Hebrew, ben adam (without the definite article). Unfortunately, although Casey's book is entitled Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem, his “solution” never answers the basic question Jesus asked, “Who is The Son of Man?” Instead, he engages in a comprehensive linguistic analysis of the use of the words within the text of the Gospels to reach a conclusion as to how the Aramaic bar enash of Daniel 7:13 became the Greek ho huios tou anthropou of Jesus' sayings. The result is so convoluted it is difficult to follow his argument. I cannot comprehend how four first-century gospel writers, each writing separately, in different parts of the ancient world, would have followed the same series of linguistic theoretical transitions that a twenty–first century linguistic scholar has concluded, and end up translating the idiom in exactly the same words. I believe the addition of the definite article in the Greek, “The Son of Man,” expressing the idiom in the third person, is part of the key to the solution of its meaning, and not part of the problem. As Casey correctly points out, Aramaic does not have a definite article, only a determined state bar enash(e), indicated by the suffix, (e). It must, therefore, have been in the original Aramaic spoken by Jesus, which was then translated by all the gospel writers into the familiar Greek of the New Testament.

“The Son of Man” occurs seventy-one times on the lips of Jesus in the four Gospels. It appears five other times but either summarizes a teaching of Jesus (Mark 8:31; 9:9; Luke 24:7), or Jesus is questioned by a crowd, “How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?” (John 12:34). The mere fact that the Gospels alone put it on the lips of Jesus indicates that it must have been original with Jesus and not the product of the early church. The term appears only three times in the rest of the New Testament (a lone exception is Hebrews 2:6, where the author quotes Psalm 8:4). The other occurrences are all in visions: by Stephen in Acts 7:56, where he proclaims, “Look … I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God”; and by John the Seer in Revelation 1:13 where “in the midst of the [seven golden] lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest”; and then again in Revelation 4:14, where John says, “Then I looked, and there was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like the Son of Man, with a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.”

Casey confounds the issue further when he describes how he analyzed the teachings of Jesus to determine which Son of Man sayings are authentic, and which are not. He did this using a complex system of reverse translation, which he calls “Aramaic reconstructions” (116). These “reconstructions” are described in detail and occupy nine of the remaining ten chapters of his book. He translates the Greek text of each saying into Aramaic to simulate the supposed original saying spoken by Jesus. If, when the reverse translation in its Aramaic version makes sense, it is authentic. If it does not, it is not authentic and must be a construct of the early Church. The logic of this process baffles me. Translations of one language (in this case the Aramaic of Jesus' original saying) into another (i.e., Greek) rarely carry exactly the same meaning as the original, as the 2003 Bill Murray movie “Lost in Translation” correctly implies. Retrieving the original saying by reversing the translation is almost impossible; it compounds the problem and risks losing the passage's original intent even further. We can only assume that the Greek translations of any of Jesus' sayings are only approximations of the original. The one thing we have most confidence in is that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, spoke of bar enash(e), third person singular, the suffix(e) being almost inaudible, but understood. This appears to be deliberate in all cases and its third person construct must have been Jesus' intention from the start.

A further observation must be made about Casey's “solution.” His conclusion that sayings that by his “reconstructions” are deemed “inauthentic” are constructs of the early Church, rather than originating with Jesus, is speculative at best, as there is no evidence that “The Son of Man” was part of the debate of the Man/God identity of Jesus in its formative years, at least not until the end of the first century.

Putting aside linguistic analysis and form criticism, I believe the solution to “The Son of Man Problem” lies within the context itself. To do this we must note the context in which “The Son of Man”, or simply “Son of Man”, is used in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament.

Ezekiel

Besides the Aramaic of the saying in Daniel 7:13, which I will consider presently, the other prominent use of the term in the Hebrew Bible is in Ezekiel, where it occurs more than ninety times in Ezekiel's forty–eight chapters. The almost unanimous consensus of scholars is that the Hebrew (ben adam) in Ezekiel simply means “human being”, and is indeed translated by the NRSV as “mortal” or “O mortal”: “O mortal, stand up on your feet and I will speak with you” (2:1). The fact that the term is repeated with such frequency in Ezekiel, and not in the writings of the other prophets, leads me to believe that its purpose is more than just one prophet's particular style. It appears to be a title. Ezekiel is addressed as ben adam. Its usage as a title will become clear as we work through to a solution. In the latter chapters of Ezekiel the title is more significant, especially in chapters 40–46 where Ezekiel is given a description of the Temple to be built upon the return of citizens' of Judea from exile:

In the twenty–fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day, the hand of yhwh was upon me, and he brought me there. He brought me, in visions of God, to the land of Israel, and set me down upon a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south. When he brought me there, a man was there, whose appearance shone like bronze, with a linen cord and a measuring reed in his hand; and he was standing in the gateway. The man said to me, ‘Son of man, look closely and listen attentively, and set your mind upon all that I shall show you, for you were brought here in order that I might show it to you; declare all that you see to the house of Israel’ [Ezek 40:1–4].

What follows are the measurements and descriptions of the Temple. As Ezekiel is given these specifications he is consistently addressed as ben adam.

“One Like a Son of Man” in Daniel

Daniel 7:13, on the other hand, is an apocalyptic vision of yhwh's throne room. The passage from 2:4b to 7:28 is written in Aramaic, while the rest of the book is written in Hebrew. Aramaic became the language of the people of the Near East during the Babylonian exile, while Hebrew became primarily the language of worship. The apocalyptic vision of Daniel begins in 7:9:

As I watched,

thrones were set in place,

and an Ancient of Days took his throne,

his clothing was white as snow,

and the hair of his head like pure wool;

his throne was fiery flames,

and its wheels were burning fire.

In vv 13 and 14 Daniel sees the ascension of “one like a son of man” from earth to the throne room where the Ancient of Days (the NRSV translates this as “Ancient One”) is enthroned:

I saw one like a son of man

coming with the clouds of heaven.

And he came to the Ancient of Days

and was presented before him.

To him was given dominion

and glory and kingship,

that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.

His dominion is an everlasting dominion

that shall not pass away,

and his kingship is one

that shall never be destroyed.

The Apocryphal Books

Among the Apocryphal books, 4 Ezra is important because in chapter 13 Ezra has an apocalyptic vision that resembles the vision of “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7. This time Ezra sees “something like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea” (13:3–4) who “flew with the clouds of heaven; and wherever he turned his face to look, everything under his gaze trembled, and wherever his voice issued from his mouth, all who heard his voice melted as wax melts when it feels the fire.” This is clearly a messianic figure because in v 32 he is identified as God's Son “whom you saw as a man coming up from the sea.” Although most extant early translations are in Greek (completed before 190 ce), the original was most likely Aramaic or Hebrew and was composed near the end of the first century ce (Hogan: 623–26). This messianic figure is judicial in that he destroys nations with the Torah, symbolized by fire in the vision (13:10–11, 38). Although written post New Testament, it is doubtful that it carries much early Christian influence, although it became popular in regional Christian churches in the Middle Ages. Today it is known to have been translated into Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Georgian, Armenian and Coptic (of which only fragments survive).

One of the most important sources for any study of “The Son of Man Problem” is the extra canonical book of 1 Enoch, especially chapters 37–71 which comprise the Book of Parables or Similitudes of Enoch, the date of which has been widely disputed over the years, although the consensus seems to be favoring a first century ce date as defended by Charlesworth (89). The Similitudes is especially important because it is an early source outside the Gospels where “Son of Man” appears to be a title. He is called “the Elect One” numerous times, “the Son of Man” (46:2, etc.), “Mine elect” (48:9), and “the Anointed” (the “Messiah”: 48:10 and 51:4). This figure is

mighty in all the secrets of righteousness, And righteousness shall disappear as a shadow … because the Elect One standeth before the Lord of Spirits, And his glory is for ever and ever, And his might unto all generations, And in him dwells the spirit of wisdom, And the spirit which gives insight, And the spirit of understanding and of might, And the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness. And he shall judge the secret things, And none shall be able to utter a lying word before him; For he is the Elect One before the Lord of Spirits according to His good pleasure [49:2–4; Charles].

In 51: 2–3,

the Elect One shall arise, And he shall choose the righteous and holy from among them: For the day has drawn nigh that they should be saved. And the Elect One shall sit on My throne, And his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and counsel; For the Lord of Spirits hath given them to him and hath glorified him.

These are clearly messianic and apocalyptic images because eventually the unrighteous are destroyed and the world is renewed: “And the righteous and elect shall be saved on that day, And they shall never thenceforward see the face of the sinners and the unrighteous. And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them, And with that Son of Man shall they eat, And lie down and rise up for ever and ever.” Chapter 71 contains the vision with reminiscences of Daniel 7 and the heavenly visions of Revelation 20–22:

And he translated my spirit into the heaven of heavens, And I saw there as it were a structure built of crystals, And between those crystals, tongues of living fire. And my spirit saw the girdle which girt that house of fire, And on its four sides were streams full of living fire, And they girt that house. And round about were Seraphin, Cherubic, and Ophannin: And these are they who sleep not And guard the throne of His glory … And they came forth from that house … And with them the Head of Days, His head white and pure as wool, And His raiment indescribable. And I fell on my face, And my whole body became relaxed, And my spirit was transfigured (vv 5–11).

The Similitudes concludes with a doxology to the Son of Man:

[The angel] came to me and greeted me with His voice, and said unto me ‘This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness, And righteousness abides over him, And the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not.’ And he said unto me: ‘He proclaims unto thee peace in the name of the world to come; For from hence has proceeded peace since the creation of the world, And so shall it be unto thee for ever and for ever and ever. And all shall walk in the ways since righteousness never forsaketh him: With him will be their dwelling places and with him their heritage, And they shall not be separated from him for ever and ever. And so there shall be length with that Son of Man, And the righteous shall have peace and an upright way in the name of the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever’ [71:14–16].

The Similitudes is especially significant because here the “Son of Man” is clearly a title and is not counted among the angels. For the first time it has a ring to it not unlike Jesus' use of the idiom in his teaching.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

Before we attempt to find a solution to “The Son of Man Problem” we must consider one more source which may have played a vital role in Jesus' understanding of himself as “The Son of Man.” That source is contained in several writings found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Before the scrolls were discovered in the mid–twentieth century it was not known that from the second century bce to the turn of the era there was the belief that at least some Jews at the time were expecting two Messiahs, rather than one. The first Messiah is variously called the “Messiah of Aaron,” the “Priest Messiah,” “Priest” or “Interpreter of the Law”; and the second Messiah is called the “Messiah of Israel,” the “King Messiah,” the “Branch of David” (cf. Jer 23:51; Zech 3:8; 6:12), the “Prince of [all] the Congregation,” or the “Sceptre.” They are mentioned in at least five of the Qumran documents: The Damascus Document (4Q265–73), The Community Rule (1QS), The Messianic Rule (1Q28a), The Blessings (1Q28b), and The Book of War (4Q285). For a complete understanding of this discovery, I will quote most of the passages pertaining to the two Messiahs. It must be pointed out, however, that this belief in two Messiahs is introduced in the scrolls as though it is not a new concept, but rather common knowledge. Though there is no indication in the New Testament that Messiah, or its Greek equivalent Christ, was ever plural, it can be assumed that it was not totally foreign to the thinking within the Judaism of the early first century ce that the expectation might be for more than one Messiah. All translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are by Vermes (2004).

The Damascus Document (CD):

Those who follow these statutes in the age of wickedness until the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel shall form groups of at least ten men, by Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties, and Tens. And where the men are, there shall never be lacking a Priest learned in the Book of Meditation; they shall all be ruled by him [Parchment Sheet XII, Line 20–XIII Line 4].

This is the exact statement of the statutes in which they shall walk until the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel who will pardon their iniquity [Sheet XIV, line 19].

It should be noted that in each of the references to the two Messiahs in the scrolls, the “Messiah of Aaron” (the “Priest Messiah”) is listed first, which is the order of priority, as will become apparent below.

The Community Rule (1QS)

As for the property of the men of holiness who walk in perfection, it shall not be merged with that of the men of injustice who have not purified their life by separating themselves from iniquity and walking in the way of perfection. They shall depart from none of the counsels of the Law to walk in all the stubbornness of their hearts, but shall be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel [Sheet IX, line 10ff].

Exactly who “the Prophet” is that was expected is not known. Some scholars believe it may be a third Messiah, but there is no clear evidence for that, and the topic is debated.

The most curious description of the function of the two Messiahs is in The Messianic Rule (1QS28a Sheet II, lines 10–25):

[This shall be the ass]embly of the men of renown called to the meeting of the Council of the Community]

When God engenders [the Priest–] Messiah, he shall come with them at the head of the whole congregation of Israel with all [his brethren, the sons] of Aaron the Priests, [those called] to the assembly, the men of renown; and they shall sit [before him, each man] in the order of his dignity. And then [the Mess]iah of Israel shall [come], and the chiefs of the [clans of Israel] shall sit before him, [each] in the order of his dignity, according to [his place] in their camps and marches. And before them shall sit all the head of [family of the congreg]ation, and the wise men of [the holy congregation,] each in the order of his dignity.

And [when] they shall gather for the common [tab]le, to eat and [to drink] new wine, when the common table shall be set for eating and the new wine [poured] for drinking, let no man extend his hand over the firstfruits of bread and wine before the Priest; for [it is he] who shall bless the firstfruits of bread and wine, and shall be the first [to extend] his hand over the bread. Thereafter, the Messiah of Israel shall extend his hand over the bread, [and] all the congregation of the Community [shall utter a] blessing, [each man in the order] of his dignity.

Brackets indicate holes in the parchment where scholars have reconstructed the presumed reading, based on the content of the text and the size of the hole. What is so interesting about this passage is how closely it parallels Jesus' Last Supper in the Gospels. If Jesus were aware of this document, which is not at all impossible, or improbable, how did he envision his role as Messiah, assuming that is what he believed his destiny to be?

The Book of War (4Q285)—The Messiah, Branch of David (fragment 7)

[As it is written in the book of] Isaiah the Prophet, [The thickets of the forest] will be cut [down with an axe and Lebanon by a majestic one will f]all. And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse … the Branch of David and they will enter into judgement … and the Prince of the Congregation, the Br[anch of David] will kill him … by strok]es and by wounds. And a Priest [of renown(?)] will command … the s]lai[n] of the Kitti[m …]

The “Kittim” are presumed to be the Romans, especially in The War Scroll (1QM).

In the Blessings (1Q28b) there are prayers of blessing for both the Messiah of Aaron (the Priest Messiah), Sheet III, lines 1–20, and for the Messiah of Israel (the King Messiah, or the Prince of the Congregation), Sheet V, lines 19–30.

Recent Attempts at a Solution

As has already been discussed, in recent years attention has centered more on linguistic analysis of the term “Son of Man” and its syntax rather than its context. Vermes concluded that Jesus' term “The Son of Man” was primarily a circumlocution for Jesus himself, simply a humble way of saying “I” (1973: 160–66). I agree that the title often refers to Jesus himself, but I believe it is much more than this.

A Solution Begins to Emerge

With this survey now before us of the sources so important in any study of the meaning of “The Son of Man,” it is time to consider a possible solution to “the Problem.” We will do this by looking, in order, at each of six assumptions:

1. Laying aside Ezekiel's use of the term “son of man” for the moment, there can be no question that “son of man” has some origin in, or with, the Divine (Dan 7:13, 4 Ezra 13:25, 37; 1 Enoch 47:3; Matt 24:30ff and its parallels, Mark 13:26, and Luke 21:27).

In Daniel 7:13 “one like a son of man” ascends to “the Ancient of Days,” or “Ancient One” (NRSV), obviously a euphemism for yhwh, where the “son of man” figure is “given dominion and glory and kingship.” This implies a messianic role of regality and kingly power. The fact that “His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away” also has messianic overtones. In 4 Ezra 13:3–4 “a figure of a man” arises out of the sea and flies “with the clouds of heaven.” In v 32 he is identified as “God's Son.” In the Similitudes of Enoch the “Son of Man” (46:2), or “the Anointed” (48:10) “standeth before the Lord of Spirits, And his glory is for ever and ever, And his might unto all generations. … For he is the Elect One before the Lord of Spirits according to His good pleasure” (49:2–4).

2. In nearly every passage where the “Son of Man” appears, it is in association with the Temple, whether the Temple in Jerusalem, or the Heavenly Temple that it is believed will ultimately replace and/or renew the earthly Temple (Dan 7:9–14; Ezek 40–46; Matt 24:1–27; Mark 13:1–27; Luke 21:5–28; Rev 1:12–16; 14:14–16). Daniel 7–12 was composed in the early second century bce during the reign of Antiochus IV, who posed a direct threat to the Jerusalem Temple Cult. Thus, it plays a central role in chapters 8–12 of Daniel. Its author envisions that the end of days has come and renewal is imminent as prophesied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. We see this especially in Daniel 9:24:

Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

It is fitting, therefore, that the “son of man” figure, when he ascends to the Ancient of Days, enters yhwh's throne room (7:9) which can be nowhere else but the Holy of Holies of the Heavenly Temple, accessible only by the High Priest. Crispin H. T. Fletcher (170) identifies “one like a son of man” in Daniel as the Heavenly High Priest. It is the atoning spot where iniquity is forgiven, sin is ended, and “everlasting righteousness” begins.

In Isaiah 6:2 and 4, Seraphim stand guard around the Temple, as do cherubim in numerous other biblical passages (1 Kgs 6:23–29; 7:29, Ezek 8:1–10:14, etc.). In Ezekiel cherubim are major angel-like figures which accompany the throne of yhwh and protect him as it moves from place to place (described in chapters 9, 10, 25, 26, 28, 36 and 37). Working with the cherubim are “wheels” (Hebrew ophan) which transport yhwh's throne in chapter 10 of Ezekiel. The description of the ophan in Ezekiel make it abundantly clear that they are also angel-like guardians of the throne. They have “eyes all around” (10:12) and each “had four faces.” In later literature the “ophanim” or “ophannin” are linked with the seraphim and the cherubim as they are in the Similitudes of Enoch which describes “the throne of His glory” as being guarded by “Seraphin, Cherubic, and Ophannin.” “And they came forth from that house (the Temple), … And with them the Head of Days” (71:4–5). The Throne of God was his residence, we are informed, where his Shekinah, or “glory,” dwells. Although Shekinah does not appear in biblical texts, it does in later rabbinic literature. Most often the biblical texts translate kâbôd as God's glory. His glory has traditionally been associated with the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle and the “mercy seat” in the Holy of Holies in the Temple (Exod 40:34; 1 Sam. 4:21; 1 Kgs 8:11; 2 Chr 7:1f). In Ezekiel “the glory of the Lord” departs the Temple and hovers over “the mountain east of the city” (the Mount of Olives) before the scene shifts “to Chaldea” and the exiles there (10:18–11:24).

In the Synoptics, immediately after visiting the Temple with his disciples, a debate is sparked when Jesus speaks of the eventual destruction of the Temple. His disciples want to know when that will happen and “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age,” and he begins teaching about the “coming of the Son of Man” (Matt 24:3, 27; Mark 13:3, 26; Luke 21:7,27) when people “will see the ‘the Son of Man coming in a cloud’ with power and great glory” (Luke 21:28; Mark 13:26).

In Revelation 1:12–13 the apocalyptic seer has a vision of a scene with seven golden lampstands “and in the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest.” In Exodus, when the plan for construction of the tabernacle is described, it was to contain a lampstand “of pure gold” with “seven lamps for it” (25:31–38), which was then put in the tabernacle “opposite the table on the south side of the tabernacle” (40:24). In 1 Kings Solomon made golden lamp-stands for the Temple (7:49) which burn “every evening” for “YHWH our God” (2 Chr 13:13). The scene that John envisions, therefore, is the Son of Man within the Heavenly Temple. The same is true in John's second vision of the Son of Man (14:14), who is dressed wearing a crown (stěphanôs) of gold and carrying a sickle, because an angel exits the Temple and calls out to the Son of Man seated on “the cloud.”

The imagery of the cloud, present in most apocalyptic visions (Dan 7:13, Ezek 10:4, 4 Ezra 13:3, Matt 24:30, 26:64, Mark 13:26, 14:62, Luke 21:27, 1 Thess 4:17, Rev 1:7) is often associated with the throne of God, or his presence. It shielded the Israelite army, and the Israelites, from the glory of yhwh's presence in Exodus 14:19 and 16:10. The “cloud” accompanies almost all theophanies of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament (Exod 19:16, 24:15ff, 40:34; Lev 16:2; Num 9:15; 1 Kgs 8:10; Isa 19:1; Ezek 10:4; Matt 17:5 & parallels; Rev 11:12). The cloud appears to be shielding the visionary from the burning glory of His presence. As the Son of Man ascends to, or descends from, the presence of God, he does so on the clouds of heaven. The throne, or thrones (Dan 7:9) of God must therefore reside either in the Heavenly or in the earthly Temple. The “thrones” also includes a second throne, presumably for the “son of man” (v 13) who ascends to the “Ancient One” on “his throne” (v 9). The only location for the throne must be within the “Holy Place” or Holy of Holies, accessible only by the High Priest. In 1 Samuel the location of God's throne is made clear:

“Let us bring the ark of the covenant of yhwh here from Shiloh, so that he may come among us and save us from the power of our enemies.” So the people sent to Shiloh, and brought from there the ark of the covenant of yhwh of hosts, who is enthroned on (“between”—KJV) the cherubim [1 Sam. 4:3–4].

Later, after Solomon's Temple was completed, one of the Temple songs, calling God the “Shepherd of Israel”, makes it clear exactly where his throne is:

Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel,

you who lead Joseph like a flock!

You who are enthroned upon (“between”—KJV)

the cherubim, shine forth

before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh.

Stir up your might,

and come to save us! [Ps 80:1–2; cf. Ps 90:1].

The cherubim guard the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, and the glory of the Lord dwells there. It is the Holy Place where the High Priest of Israel enters once a year on the Day of Atonement, prays to yhwh using the unspeakable sacred name, and sprinkles the sacrificial blood on the sacred lid (the “mercy seat”) of the Ark of the Covenant. To survive the brilliant glory of God, which shines immediately above the mercy seat, the High Priest also carries a container of hot coals and incense causing a thick haze (a “cloud”) to obscure the glory of God, lest eyes who behold it should die. The sprinkling of blood was to purify the contamination of the Holy Place by the sins of the people of Israel. The Son of Man, who both ascends to and descends from the throne of God, whether spoken of by Daniel, mentioned in 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, or in the teaching of Jesus, is, therefore, none other than the Heavenly High Priest (cf. Heb 4:14; 5:5, 10; 6:20, etc.), either seated on, or accompanied by, a cloud.

To confirm the identity of The Son of Man' as the Heavenly High Priest, the vestments worn by “one like the Son of Man” in Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 correspond closely with the vestments of the High Priest of Israel, the construction of which are described in detail in Exodus 39:1–31. They include a robe (vv 22–24), a golden diadem (v 30), and a golden sash (v 29). One variation of the description is the color of the sash. In the Exodus account of the vestments of the High Priest the sash is made of “fine twisted linen, and of blue, purple, and crimson yarns, embroidered with needlework,” all colors that symbolize the royal authority of the High Priest, while the Heavenly High Priest (“the Son of Man”) visions in Revelation the “crown” and “sash” are both gold, the prominent color of the heavenly realm in apocalyptic literature (Dan 10:5; Rev 4:4, 9:7, 17:4, 18:16, 21:18–21).

3. In Ezekiel, the “son of man” title carries far more meaning than just the designation “mortal” as it is translated in the NRSV. In nearly every case in the more than ninety usages of the term, it is in connection with the sins of Israel (2:3ff; 3:4ff; 3:17;4:4ff; 6:1ff; 7:1ff, etc.) or in connection with the functions or sins of the Temple (8:5ff; 8:14ff; 21:2ff; and especially 22:23ff). In chapters 40–46 Ezekiel has visions of a new Temple, with its description and measurements, all particulars which concern priests and especially the High Priest. The description of the Temple begins with this order, “Son of man, look closely and listen attentively, and set your mind upon all that I shall show you, for you were brought here in order that I might show it to you; declare all that you see to the house of Israel” (40:4). In 43:7 he is told, “Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet, where I will reside among the people of Israel forever.” The fact that Ezekiel, addressed as “son of man” in this verse, is shown “the place of my throne” implies that he is shown the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place accessible only to the High Priest. These pieces of information are especially suited for a High Priest. In addition, in 43:18, Ezekiel, called the “son of man,” is given “the ordinances for the altar,” again of particular concern only to a priest. The same is true in 44:5ff:

Son of man, mark well, look closely, and listen attentively to all that I shall tell you concerning all the ordinances of the temple of yhwh and all its laws; and mark well those who may be admitted to the temple and all those who are excluded from the sanctuary.

In 46:20f, and 48:10ff there are specific instructions for priests that only a High Priest would have the authority to enforce. The result of this is, in my opinion, that where “son of man” is used in Ezekiel, it should simply be translated “priest” and in a few places even the title “high priest” would be appropriate. Substituting the titles “son of man” or “mortal” (NRSV) with “priest” or “high priest” gives the prophecy of Ezekiel rich meaning that may not have been apparent before.

4. In numerous places where Jesus speaks of “The Son of Man” it is in connection with his impending suffering (Matt 17:12, 20:17ff, Mark 8:31, 9:12, 10:33, 45, Luke 9:22, 17:24f, John 3:24, 8:28). In Hebrews 2:17–18 the author has “connected all the dots” to make this statement:

Therefore (Jesus) had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.

And in 9:11ff the “faithful high priest” makes the “sacrifice of atonement” “with his own blood”:

When Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

In anticipation of the Messiah's atoning for the sins of the world with his own blood as the Great High Priest, Hebrews begins his description with this observation:

In these last days he (yhwh) has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right of the Majesty on high [Heb 1:1–3].

5. Continuously throughout the literature “the son of man” is the judge of the wickedness of humanity (4 Ezra 13:3–4; 13:37f; 1 Enoch 38:3; 49:2–4; 51:1–2; 69:27; Matt 19: 27–30; 25: 31–46; Rev 1:12–3. 21). In 4 Ezra whoever heard the voice of the son of man “melted as wax melts when it feels the fire” (13:4) In verses 37 and 38 he will “reprove the assembled nations for their ungodliness … and will reproach them to their face with their evil thoughts.” In the Similitudes “the secrets of the righteous shall be revealed and the sinners judged” by the son of man (“the Righteous One”—37:3). In chapter 49 “unrighteousness shall disappear as a shadow” and “he shall judge the secret things, And none shall be able to utter a lying word before him” (vv 2 and 4). Finally, in the Similitudes “the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man, And he caused the sinners to pass away and to be destroyed from off the face of the earth. And those who have led the world astray” (69:27).

In the New Testament, Matthew describes “the Son of Man … seated on the throne of his glory” who then gives those who have followed him “twelve thrones” where they are given authority to judge “the twelve tribes of Israel” (19:28). A few chapters later a detailed description is given of the Son of Man who gathers “all the nations before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (25:31–46). In Revelation 1:12–3:21 “one like the Son of Man” is given the “keys of Death and Hades” (1:18). This is followed by his judgement of the seven churches of Revelation.

6. The literature portrays the royalty of the “son of man” (Dan 7:13–14; 1 Enoch 45:3; 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:4–9; 69:26; Matt 16:28; 19:27–30; 25:31; Mark. 9:1; Luke 9:26–27; Rev 3:21). In the seminal image of “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13ff, the figure is “given dominion and glory and kingship” and it is “everlasting” and “shall never be destroyed.” The same basic theme is repeated in the Similitudes where “Mine Elect One” sits “on the throne of glory” (45:3; 51:3; 55:4; 61:8, cf. Dan 7:9 and Matt 19:28), where “the mighty and all who possess the earth shall bless and glorify and extol him who rules over all” (62:6).

The many teachings and parables about the Kingdom of God/Heaven which so dominate the ministry of Jesus need not be enumerated here, but he often speaks of “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matt 16:28; 19:27–30; 25:31; Mark 9:1; 9:26–27; Rev 3:21, etc.).

It must also be mentioned that when Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, he blessed the bread and wine (Matt 26:26 and parallels; cf. 1 Cor 11:23–26). This action emulates the action of the Priest Messiah mentioned in The Messianic Rule among the Dead Sea Scrolls where the covenantors, when gathering for “the common [tab]le”, are instructed to “let no man extend his hand over the firstfruits of bread and wine before the Priest (Messiah); for [it is he] who shall bless the firstfruits of bread and wine, and shall be the first [to extend] his hand over the bread.”

All of this raises the question as to the role Jesus envisioned for the Messiah: whether the Messiah was King of the Jews, or Heavenly High Priest, and which role he assumed as Messiah. I believe he saw himself in both roles, King and Priest, with his priestly role having priority over any royal role.

The Son of Man Spoken of in the Third Person

In conclusion, the peculiar third person construct in the New Testament of “The Son of Man” must be addressed. There has been a copious amount of ink and paper expended attempting to explain its purpose. Casey spent a major part of his book attempting to do just that. Vermes (1973) spent a chapter on the question, and has done so again in Jesus in His Jewish Context (2003, 81–90).

Casey tries to recreate it using his peculiar reconstruction technique trying to retrieve the original Aramaic statements of Jesus, while Vermes views it primarily as a circumlocution for the personal “I” spoken in meekness and humility to avoid repeated self–proclamation. Neither of these options is particularly attractive. Casey's reconstruction of the language is simply not convincing as explained in detail above.

Also, the figure, while most obviously Jesus' reference to himself, is also separate from himself. Therefore, it is significantly more than mere circumlocution (à la Vermes). Many sayings indicate that Jesus never seems to be avoiding the personal pronoun: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matt 5:17), a form of speech used throughout the Sermon on the Mount. It appears, therefore that the construct of the Greek ho huios tou anthropou is a rendering of Jesus' presumable use of the Aramaic bar enash(e), with its emphatic suffix, which is equivalent to our definite article. There is no convincing evidence that such an Aramaic construct did not, or could not exist. The Aramaic form must have been part of the idiom in Jesus' teaching for it to have been consistently used by the evangelists in their Greek renderings (whether paraphrasic or translation) of Jesus' sayings.

There is, of course, no definitive proof of Jesus' meaning for using the third person for The Son of Man idiom. However, speculation is worthwhile, and I believe the answer lies in Jesus' self identification and his relationship with the “The Son of Man.” As I have already mentioned, the title seems both internal (circumlocution) and external, almost as though “The Son of Man” were a separate being, and some have even suggested that as a possibility. I believe, however, that Jesus is intrinsically linked with the title.

I believe, therefore, that Jesus' use of the term “The Son of Man” refers to the destiny he believes was given him by his Heavenly Father, his “Abba” (Mark 14:36). He had denied his own will to follow the Will of his Father, which was yet not necessarily his own will. Thus Jesus believed his destiny was determined by yhwh, who was leading him on his way throughout his ministry to its conclusion. That destiny was “The Son of Man” and the role of “The Son of Man” was the Heavenly High Priest. Fairly early in his ministry, as we have seen above, Jesus spoke of the impending suffering of “The Son of Man,” and it led him to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51). In Gethsemane, Jesus, sweating profusely in fear and sorrow, prayed fervently that yhwh release him from that destiny, but the answer he received was “No.” It was his constant companion, this denial of self, and it ultimately resulted in the cross. Paul, I believe, speaks of this in Romans 3:28 when he speaks of the faithfulness of Jesus (Matt 16:24). It was Jesus' faithfulness in denying himself, and accepting the destiny laid out for him by “The Son of Man” that took him to the cross. Thus The Son of Man leads, and Jesus follows.

The Son of Man, therefore, involves two roles for Jesus in that destiny. They are both the sacrificial High Priest, offering himself as the sacrifice, attested to in the first chapters of Hebrews, and kingship, the inaugurator of the Kingdom of God/Heaven. While it was The Son of Man's role as Heavenly High Priest that caused Caiaphas to seek Jesus' death (Matt 26:65), it was as “King of the Jews” that the Romans crucified Jesus, just as the title read above his head on the cross. In the high priest's view, Jesus was claiming the role of High Priest for himself, and its power, usurping the power of Jerusalem's temple. It was, indeed, in Caiaphas' thinking, “blasphemy,” deserving death. At the same time, in Pontius Pilate's view, the crucifixion was justified because he thought Jesus was claiming to be “King of the Jews.” Ironically, they were both right.

Thus, “The Son of Man,” Jesus' constant companion throughout his ministry, whom he followed to his final destiny, fulfilled the dual role of the Messiah: both the Priest Messiah and the King Messiah. Both were expected in the “end of days” by the ascetic community at Qumran who authored what today are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their expectations were fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth.

References

Casey,

Maurice

. 2009. Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem. Library of New Testament Studies. New York, NY: T & T Clark International. See also the extensive bibliography of the Son of Man literature used as primary sources by Casey, 325–38.

Charles,

R.H.

1906. The Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press.

Charlesworth,

James H.

1985. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Fletcher,

Crispin H.T.

1997. The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the Hebrew Bible: Dan 7:13 as a Test Case. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Paper/161–75.

Hare,

Douglas R.A.

1990. The Son of Man Tradition. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Hogan,

Karina Martin

. 2010. Ezra, Fourth Book of. The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, Collins,

John J.

Harlow,

Daniel C.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 623–26.

Lightfoot,

J. B.

1889–1890. The Apostolic Fathers, Part 2, Vol. 1. 2nd Ed. London, UK: Macmillan.

Robinson,

John A.T.

1976. Redating the New Testament. London, UK: SCM Press.

Sanders,

E. P.

1993. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London, UK: Penguin Books.

10.

Sanders,

E. P.

1985. Jesus and Judaism. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

11.

Vermes,

Geza

. 2004. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Revised Edition. London, UK: Penguin Books.

12.

Vermes,

Geza

. 2003. Jesus in His Jewish Context. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

13.

Vermes,

Geza

. 1973. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. London, UK: Collins/Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.

14.

Wright,

N. T.

1996. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. See especially 512ff.