The theory that best fits all the facts we have on hand is that Jesus Himself was the first one clearly to interpret Daniel’s “son of man” as the Messiah (indeed, implicitly, as the divine Messiah). It would have been the perfect title to use for Himself, because it would not have been instantly recognized by His audience as a claim to Messiahship.
Part 22: The Mystery of the Title, “The Son of Man”
By Robert Stackpole, STD
In this weekly web series, Dr. Robert Stackpole, emeritus director of the John Paul II Institute of Divine Mercy, leads us step-by-step through the life of the Founder of Christianity, from Bethlehem to Galilee to Jerusalem. Along the way, we pause to consider in-depth the historical debate over the gospel stories of the virginal conception and nativity of Jesus, his message of the Kingdom, his embrace of persecution and death on the Cross, and his glorious bodily resurrection from the dead. Finally, we plunge into the great mystery of the Incarnation, and show how it actually shines through the whole gospel story from beginning to end. Read the series from the beginning.
It is a curious fact that, except for the confession of St. Stephen in the book of Acts (Acts 7:56), the early church, as far as we know, never called Jesus “The Son of Man.” The title is not used in the New Testament Epistles either. In the Gospels, it occurs only on the lips of Jesus Himself.
We cannot, therefore, attribute this title to the theological creativity of the first Christians. Nor can we claim, as some scholars have done, that Jesus used the title to refer to another person who would come in the future.
The few ambiguous “Son of Man” sayings in this regard should be interpreted in the light of the many in which Jesus clearly used the title for Himself. Nor can we interpret the title just as Jesus’ humble way of saying “a mere human being,” because Jesus does not refer to Himself as “a son of man” but as “The Son of Man.” An extraordinary claim of some kind was clearly being made here.
Implicit claim
Indeed, some scholars now believe that the title on the lips of Jesus was an implicit claim to divine status! If, as seems likely, Jesus was drawing the title from Daniel 7:13-14 (quoted in the previous installment of this series), then, as Catholic biblical scholar Grant Pitre says,
[T]hat means he is no mere earthly Messiah, no mere earthly king. … First, he comes “on the clouds of heaven” — something only God does in the Old Testament. Second, the book of Daniel says that he is “like a son of man”— that is, he appears to be a merely human figure but is in fact a heavenly being (Dan 7:13). {1]
Moreover, as Jesus himself states in the Gospels, the Son of Man even has divine authority on earth to forgive people’s sins (Mk 2:5-12).
Scholars are divided, however, on whether or not the Jewish people of Palestine in Jesus’ day would have recognized “The Son of Man” as a Messianic title. A book written in Galilee entitled The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 48:10, 52:4) does explicitly use the title “Son of Man” for the Messiah, but as Reza Aslan points out, “because no copies of the Similitudes were found among the many copies of Enoch found at Qumran [that is, among the Dead sea Scrolls], most scholars are now convinced that it was not written until well after the destruction of the Temple [in Jerusalem] in 70 c.e.” [2]
What we can say for sure is that the later rabbis identified the “son of man” in Daniel as the Messiah. [3]
Jesus and Daniel
Some of the Jews may have interpreted “a son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14 as a reference not to the Messiah, but as symbolic of the vocation of the People of Israel as a whole, who will reign over the earth on God’s behalf, leading all in the true worship of the Lord when God’s Kingdom finally comes. Of course, the two interpretations are not necessarily contradictory: Jesus could have seen His own, individual vocation as “Son of Man” to be the symbol, and savior of a whole new purified Israel, to enable Israel finally to fulfill its vocation in God’s plan to bring all the nations of the earth to worship the true God (Gen 12:3; Is 49:6).
The theory that best fits all the facts we have on hand is that Jesus Himself was the first one clearly to interpret Daniel’s “son of man” as the Messiah (indeed, implicitly, as the divine Messiah). It would have been the perfect title to use for Himself, because it would not have been instantly recognized by His audience as a claim to Messiahship (with all the popular misunderstandings that went with the expectation of the Messiah in Jesus’ day). As a cryptic title, therefore, it would have forced his listeners to search the Scriptures in order to uncover its hidden meaning.
Vocation
Moreover, it would have prompted Jesus’ hearers to listen very carefully to how Jesus Himself spoke of his vocation as the Son of Man. New Testament scholar C.H. Dodd noted that Jesus often used the title, in response to the Messianic expectations of others, and especially in connection with His sufferings to come; for example: “Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ’ .… And [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed ….” (Mt 16:21; Mk 8:31; Lk 9:22).
Also, Jesus taught His disciples, “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45; 1 Tim 2:5-6). The true Son of Man would come into his triumph only through the way of suffering.
Thus, Jesus not only adopted the title “The Son of Man,” he also used it in a paradoxical way: as a title for the divine Messiah, sent from Heaven, but also as the title of One who fulfills His earthly mission only by suffering and dying on a cross.
In this respect, according to Grant Pitre, Jesus was being faithful to the message of the book of Daniel as a whole:
Although the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is not described as being put to death, the future “messiah” in Daniel 9 is described as being put to death. In fact, this is the only explicit prophecy of the death of the “messiah” (Hebrew mashiach) in the Old Testament [Daniel 9: 24-27]. …
First, the prophecy declares that there will be 490 years (“seventy weeks of years”) between the restoration of the city of Jerusalem and the coming of a “messiah” ….
Second, and equally important, the prophecy also declares that this future Messiah will be “cut off” — a common Hebrew expression for being put to death. As I have argued elsewhere in more detail, Jesus is treating the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and the Messiah in Daniel 9 as if they were the same person: the first prophecy describes the heavenly enthronement of the Messiah; the second describes the earthly suffering and death of the Messiah. …
According to the book of Daniel, the Messiah will not just come in glory; he will also suffer and die. [4]
Next: The Suffering Servant of the Lord.
Previous article.
Notes
[1] Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus (2016), p .143-144.
[2] Reza Aslan, Zealot (New York: Random House, 2014), p. 255.
[3] See the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a; Numbers Rabbah 13:14.
[4] Pitre, p. 114-116.
{shopmercy-ad}
