• Schintedel, p. 204 : ' The name is (riven (viz. by Dn T'SJ ; what it eignillus is matter not tor an analytical Judgment, hut for a synthetical one,' ».e. it is to be ascertained from 'prfdicates defining the work or otflce of the Messiah.' C(. Uollziu. p. IM bottom, 264 n. ; Wellh. p. 214.
t C(. H. A. W. Ueyer on Mt 8» (klterwl In the 8tb ed. by B. Weiss). '
[cf. below, § 10]). ' Jesus," Holtzniann continues, ' throws into the title whatever is characteristic of His mission and ministry. He makes it the exclu- sive designation of the person who is to represent and realize the ideas e.xpresseil by it. .lust because He is conscious that this mission brings with it earthly privation and suffering, and even death, the "Son of man" become' the subject of pre- dications relating not only m future glory, but also to earthly humiliation and death. Thus Jesus is, and is called, the " Son of man," on the one hand wherever by forgiving and healing, by teaching and suffering. He proclaims, represents, or extends the kingdom ; on the other hand, and especially, when, coming in glory, He completes it. As the kingdom is a present as well as a future reality, so the title "Son of man" bears reference to His work in the present not less than in the future ' (pp. 250-3, abridged).
Upon this view the first art. (e) points to Dn 7^3 (Holtzm. p. 2G4 n. ; Schraiedel, p. 2(J4), the second {toZ) results simply by a kind of attraction, from the presence of the first (Schniiedel, l.c. ; Winer, Gramm. 5 19, 26-4).
16. In what is here said of the use of the title, there is much that is, of course, perfectly just; but to tlie view taken of its origin there seem to be objections. In the vision of Daniel the ' one like unto a son of man ' is represented as a glorified, heavenly being, and the kingdom is a triumphant kingdom. No account is taken of the long period during which, as a matter of history, the kingdom was gradually and slowly to extend itself among men ; it has been finally and univers- ally established in the earth (7'''). Now, if the passages in which our Lord first used the expres- sion had been those in which He describes His future advent in glory, there would have been a direct point of contact with the vision in Daniel, sufficient to account for the title being adopted from it ; but, as it is, it is impossible, without most arbitrary treatment of the Gospel narratives, to suppose that to have been the case ; and thus, with tlie passages in which He is actually repre- sented as first using it, and which all deal with various aspects of His life in humility upon earth, there is no point of contact in Daniel at all. As Westcott {Sjica/cer's Comm. on St. John, p. 34) says, ' It is out of the question to suppose that the definite article simply expressed " the prophetic son of man." The manner in which the title ia first used excludes such an interpretation.' There is nothing, viz., in the manner in which the title is first used — or indeed chiefly used — in the Synoptic Gospels, to suggest a reference to Daniel, or to lead to the supposition that our Lord intended by His use of it to bring before His hearers the tran- scendent, heavenly being represented in Daniel. A being, conscious, indeed, of his authority and of the high mi.ssion entrusted to him, but presenting all the outward marks of earthly humility, and only in the future destined to as.sume heavenlj' majesty, is surely what the title denotes in the Gospels. Iloltziiianns identification of the king- dom pictured in Daniel, not with the kingdom of Christ in its final glory, but with the kingdom at the time of His rounding it during His earthly ministry, is not natural. There is equally little, not to say less, to suggest that the title is borrowed from the 'Similitudes' of Enoch. It is also diffi- cult not to think (in spite of Holtzm. p. 253 f.) that it is intended to express primarily, and also more fully and distinctively than even Holsten (§20. 11) allows, some meaning directly involved in the words of which it consists (analogous, for instance, to that of its correlative, the ' Son of God ').
17. The other main view may be stated sut)- stantially, as is done by B. Weiss {NT Theol. 1884,
SON OF IMAN
SON OF MAN
585
§ 16). (1) Our Lord adopted this title just because it wns not a current title of the Messiah. In view of the expectations of a personal Messiah wliiih prevailed at the time, Dn 7'* could certainly in His daj- be interpreted only of the Mes.siah ; but, even so, He could not a.ssunie that this particular passa<;e would be so ■.'enerally known that the exjiression, 'the Son of man,' would be at once unilerstood as referring: to it. The case would be ditl'erent if we could presuppose the use made of Daniel in Enoch ; but, even if the jjre-Christian origin of the 'Similitudes' be granted, it is far from clear that they were familiarly known in the circles in which our Lord's ministry principally lay. Only when Jesus in the e.schatological pas- sages directed attention to Dn 7" could the title be understood gener.ally as a Messianic designa- tion. This view of His use of the title agrees with the manner in which, during all the earlier part of His ministry, He avoided any direct announce- ment of His ilessiahship, in order not to lend encouragement to the unspiritual ideas attaching to the popular conception of the Messiah. (2) For His hearers the idea expres.sed by the title wouKi be that He was not a ' son of man ' like all others, but that He was 'the son of man,' one who, in virtue of His character and personality, held a unii|ue position among men. It did not designate merely Ills humanity (for this must have been evident to all who saw Him), but it marked Him out as in some sense a sj)ecinl or representative man. (3) Christ's statements resi)ecting the 'Son of man,' the functions, oHice, and divinely ajipointed destinies tussigned to him, jioint to one wlio has a mission higher than that of an ordinary |>rophet, i.e. indirectly to one who is also the Messiah. They speak of Him, for instance, as in various ways proclaiming or establishing the kingdom of God. He has authority to forgive sins ; and He gives His life a ransom for many. He is con- trasted with John the Baptist, who is merely a forerunner. The sufterings of tlie Son of man are divinely appointed (Sei, — Mk 8" |; II, al.), because it is imnlied in the OT that God's plan of salvation would not be linally realized upon earth without the sull'cring and death of the servant of God by whom it would he accomplished. (4) Lastly, in the prophecies of the Second Advent, our Lord alluded so clearly to Dn 7" that though He does not expressly identify Himself with the ' one like unto a son of man ' there spoken of, those who heard Him, and who identified the figure in Daniel with the Messiah, could not but conclude that He meant by the term that particular 'son of man' who was to be the Messiah.*