I have been taking an institute class on the names and title of Jesus as many of you know. (I have had some few posts that were sparked by this class and here is another) This past week we were to have a discussion on the title Son of Man as used by the Savior quite often. I was excited for this because I was under the impression that we would be focusing on Daniel chapter 7 and I love the Book of Daniel. Much to my surprise this was not the case, in fact there was no plan to talk of Daniel at all.
This was quite a shock to me. I was under the impression everyone knew of the relation between this title and the title presented in Daniel. As I found out in that class this is not the case and as I found out over the next few days this title Son of Man was far from agreed upon by theologians and scholars both in The Church and throughout all of Christendom.
This was a crazy shock to me but also filled me with a sizable amount of excitement. Nothing lights my fires as much as being able to do a focused scriptural study. (Ok, I know that’s weird but I’ve been running this blog for like 6 months and been writing these kinds of posts of Facebook for the 3 years proceeding that, its on you at this point if you didn’t expect that lol)
After this extensive study my opinion remains the same that this title is a reference to Daniel, but I will go through the main interpretations of this title. I won’t be able to give much space to each as I don’t plan to write a full book here, but I will do my best to present the interpretations and then I will give my opinion on them. Notably there are a large number of interpretations that have very few amounts of people that adhere to them and so I will not be going into them as they are numerically insignificant. However, 2 notable ones are Bart Ehrman’s Idea that Son of Man is a separate individual from Christ as discussed in his book “Historical Jesus”. But this notion has been argued against, quite effectively in my opinion, by Dennis Ingolfsland back in 2001 in his Paper “An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman’s “Historical Jesus”” which can be found and read on Researchgate.net (its only 17 or so pages and pretty good) The other notable exclusion will be The Phil Colins interpretations, as much as I love that song this title does not refer to Tarzan in a biblical sense.
Interpretations:
First: Son of the Man of Holiness
While not the first interpretation historically or held by not LDS scholars it ranks quite high in the inherent foundational knowledge that come with our religion. This stems from a verse found in Moses Chapter 6 verse 57:
“Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere must repent. Or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.” (Underlines added)
I can see that the implication here is that Son of man is short for Son of Man of Holiness. This is also the Idea that is referenced in Mormon Doctrine by McConkie and also referenced in the bible dictionary and the newer book LDS Beliefs by Millet, Olson. Skinner and Top. To be clear I do not disagree with this. I believe the title used in Moses chapter 6 is refencing that. But it seems in all of our written works that this interpretation is the end there of and the implication is the 90 times Jesus used this title in the New Testament He was making a reference to an idea that no one at the time could have know and would not be known to anyone for 1795 or so years. The Adamic language vanished from the earth at the time the tower of Babel fell. There is no indication in scripture that this knowledge was some how preserved from the confounding of tongues at the time. There is also no evidence that the Jews at the time of Jesus had the portions of Genesis that Joseph added at the time of his translation. We have translations of the Old Testament that pre-date Jesus’ time by about 300 years (Namely the Septuagint and the copies found in the dead sea scrolls) and they do not contain the missing portions that hold this scripture. We also do not know if Joseph Smith was divinely readding something that was lost or adding new information as directed by the Lord. Either these verses were lost long before the first century or they were held back for the Lord to reveal in this dispensation.
It is not beyond Jesus’ capability to know this title to be a reference to the Adamic language but it is almost certainly impossible that 1st century Jews and Gentiles knew that. There simply must be more to this title.
Second Interpretation: Arian Heresy
This one comes closer to the first historical interpretation. In the centuries after the death of Christ and the Apostles an idea began to gain popularity: Jesus was not equal to the Father in power and glory because he was not divine at first. This idea was spear headed by a man named Arius, and among his claims was that when Jesus said He was the Son of Man He meant He was only human, then after the resurrection He became divine. This idea blew up the Christian world for decades and without Prophets and Apostles, without revelation and authority the Christians at the time had a major problem. Their answer was to hold a council in Nicaea and there they formed a creed of which James E Talmage said “It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions, expressed in words as few.”
In response to the false idea that Jesus was not divine, the Trinity was born. We can’t blame them too much for this as they were doing their best given the circumstances but in short this was not good. This use of the title Son of Man lives on today in the Trinitarian concept that Jesus is fully man and fully God. While this idea is not inherently wrong it has confused the nature of divinity and humanity. Christ is Jehovah and divine but He also condescended to become mortal man. Divinity is not something alien or other as trinitarian doctrine proclaim but a point of righteousness and holiness that can be obtained through the Atonement of Christ. A path planned ahead by one whose work and glory it is, started on with fruit in a garden, charged to be perfect as our Father in heaven is, and brought to fruition by the Christ unto whom we can come and be perfected in. To use the title of Son of Man as proof that man if different from divine is not something Jesus would have taught or would have encouraged.
Third Interpretation: One of humility
Was Christ humble? Yes, resounding yes. Never is he recorded being arrogant when those He created mock and test him. Never is He prideful and bragging about the works of His hands. And never is He conceited in His defeat of false theologies, claims, and ideas. Through all of His life He gives credit to His Father, to whose will He Always submits His own. But that is not the question. Of course, Christ is humble, that why we call it a Christlike attribute. The question is should we Interpret the title Son of Man as an act of humility?
This is probably the interpretation I hear the most for this title. “Christ shows His humility by claiming to be a son of man instead of the son of God.” And I understand that, it sounds pretty humble. But does scripture support this use of this title?
Jesus uses this title about 870 times in the Gospels, it is used 5 times in the New Testament out side of the Gospels, and 16 times in the Doctrine and Covenants. (it is also used once in the book of Mormon but is not referring to Jesus and is used 93 times in Ezekiel but here is a literary device used to show when God is talking to Ezekiel and is never applied as a self-identifier as with Jesus, in other words they are not contextually relevant) Of those 97 times 63 time the title Son of Man is used is directly used showing Power, Glory, Authority or Divine Station. 33 more are used as self-identifiers while prophesying about himself, his coming, and what will happen to Him before the atonement. 5 of them are about His purpose. And 2 of them could be seen as using in a humble way. (Now if you do the math on that you will see that that adds up to more than 97. That is because some of the uses are getting doubled counted because they fit multiple categories)
Those 2 that are humble uses are Matthew 8:20 and Luke 9:58:
“Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head”
I then have to ask is this a declaration of His humble circumstances or is it possibly a warning to those wanting to follow Him that is ministry is hard and lacks comforts? Christ here is talking to someone who has asked to follow him and this sounds like it is in the same vein as the instruction he gives his apostles when sending them out the first time:
“Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money, and do not have two tunics. And whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart”
I would submit that Christ ministry, much like John the Baptists, is not marked by creature comforts and in Matthew chapter 8:20 he is warning a possible follower of this. I can see how this could be a mark of humility, and by extension how Christ’s ministry is an example of His humility, but I think the scriptural evidence for the title Son of Man being a title of humility isn’t there.
Fourth Interpretation: A reference to Daniel
In the book of Daniel, specifically chapter 7, Daniel has a vision. Well, he has many visions but this one is important as it is a vision of Adam-ondi-Ahman. He sees in a vision a being dressed in all white whose hair is white as pure wool. He goes and sits upon a fiery throne and is named Ancient of Days. We learn from revelation in D&C 116 that This Ancient of Days is Adam the father of all mankind. He sits enthroned and opens books of judgement and recounts his watch over mankind even until the beast was slain. And then Daniels record the following:
“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of Heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought near before him. And there was given him [the Son of Man] dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away. And his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” (brackets given for clarification)
Support for Daniel Interpretation
Ok now let’s look at why it could be a reference to Daniel. We should start by talking about the other uses in the Old Testament. The big one is Ezekiel and as I mentioned above this is used as a literary device. It is always preceded by some form or another of “The lord said to me: son of man” and is used to distinguish when the Lord is talking to Ezekiel vs when the Lord is telling Ezekiel to tall other something on the Lord’s behalf. The other 13 (not including Daniel) are used the exact same way the more common modern phrase children of men would be used. Thus, Daniel is the only Old Testament usage of the Title Son of Man that is actually a title.
It is also striking how similarly the Danielic title matches the use of the New Testament title. In more than 60% of the times Jesus used the title Son of Man He does so in reference to coming from heaven, power and glory, or in a way showing His authority or position. Which is exactly how Daniel is using the title in his vision. By doing so Jesus is claiming His right to that exalted position and by extension authority over mankind and all the earth. But would this claim have been understood?
Would the people at the time of Jesus have been familiar with the Danielic use of this title? Yes. To understand why the average person may have understood the Danielic usage we must understand what Book of Daniel is. Most people are familiar with the first 6 chapter; we have the stories of Daniel and the lion’s den, the writing on the wall, Daniel interpreting dreams, and Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah being cast into the fire, but this is not all of Daniel. In fact, it is only half. In chapters 7 through 12 Daniel has visions for days. He sees the coming of the Messiah both the first and second time, the fall of Babylon and all of the kingdoms thereafter, and the advent of the kingdom of God upon the earth. Daniel is comparable to the Book of Revelation but in the Old Testament. And in exactly the same way that the Book of Revelation has captured the hearts and minds of most Christians, Daniel and a few other books (Isiah and Zechariah included) captured the minds of the post Maccabean Jews.
To further add support that the New Testament Jews were familiar with this book we can turn to the New Testament itself. Out side of the Gospels there are 4 uses of the title Son of Man. One in Hebrews is a quote from the Psalms and is contextually not relevant. But the other 3 are. Found in Acts and Revelation they are most relevant:
“Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God” Acts 7: 56
“And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and grit about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were as a flam of fire” Revelation 1:13-14
“And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of Man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle” Revelation 14:14
It is the exact same verbiage used in Daniel chapter 7. And more over who wrote these books? Luke who wrote the Gospel wrote Acts and John who wrote the Gospel wrote Revelation. We can directly show that 2 of the 4 writers of the Gospels were familiar enough with Daniel to alluded to his vision in chapter 7 while writing other books. And we can show that the other two gospel writers were familiar enough with Daniel to reference the abomination of desolation and then directly link that to Daniel as found in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. It would be somewhat foolish not to assume all of the Gospel writers knew Daniel well at the time they wrote their respective Gospels.
In addition to those non-gospel new testament references there are also 5 direct quotes from Daniel in the gospels: Matt 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27 and there are 2 times when Daniel is directly attributed as mentioned above: Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. And to quote Craig Evans in his essay DANIEL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: VISIONS OF GOD’S KINGDOM the introduction reads “[Daniel is] alluded to, or echoed, some 130 times. The index in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.) which combines quotations and allusions, lists some 200 references. Proportionately, this puts Daniel in the same category as Isaiah and the Psalms, the books most frequently quoted and alluded to in the New Testament.”
The question then comes to me: if the use of Daniel is so prolific in the New Testament why does Jesus not just directly say “I am the Son of Man you know like the title from Daniel”? In short why is there debate on the origin of the use of this title?
This stumped me for some time until I was reading unrelatedly in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 13:
“Who has ears to hear, let him hear. And the disciples came, and said unto him, why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath”
Christ shows here that often in His teaching he is teaching a crowd of mixed individuals. Some ready for his word: they who have; and some not ready for His word: they who have not. I wont digress into the importance of the use of parables at this time but His use of them and all of His acts to shield those who were not ready while simultaneously giving unto those who are show a possible reason for not directly stating the title is from Daniel. And we see this exact principle in action in john chapter 12 when talking to a group of Pharisees, Greeks, and Disciples about His coming crucifixion and resurrection (a difficult teaching that often the Apostles were not ready to understand) and when they who were not ready to hear it heard it:
“The people answered him, we have heard out of the law that the Christ abideth forever: and how sayest thou, the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man? Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him”
Yet they believed not on him; but from whosoever hath no, from him shall be taken. These people here were not ready to believe in Jesus as the Christ and it shows how His use of the Title Son of Man and his subsequential vagueness of its origin fulfilled the same purpose as His use of parables.
Ultimately, we may never no with perfect clarity why Jesus was so fond of this title. It could be a reference to Man of Holiness, a statement of humility, or as in my opinion a reference to the Visions of Daniel. Or it could be all three, and loads more. But I have given ample reasoning as to why, this title should be reminiscent of the Visions of Daniel, and when we see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory, we shall surely know what Daniel saw.
In Christ’s name Amen.
As always, I’m praying for thee, please pray for me.