3. Hilgenfeld (if. WUs, Th. 1S63. 327-334; cf. 1894, 16f.X Not a current Mess, title. Suggested by Dn 7'3, but used by Jf'suswith the object of givingpromuience to His humanity, and vf emphasizing the humility and external lowliness which in His person were combined with the exalted dignity of the .Messiah. It thus in a veiled manner pointed to His Messiahship. Jesus, by uniting spiritual loftiness with earthly lowliness, * trans- figured' the popular Jewish idea of the Messiah.
4. Weizsacker (Evann. Gesch. 1864, 420-431). Not a current Mess, title (for, if it had been, Jesus would have been attacked for appropriating it) ; and adopted by Jesua, not from Dn 7is, but from Ezekiel, to designate Himself specially as a prophet. The Mess, sense, derived from Dn 7^'\ was attached to it only at a later period of our Lord's life.
5. Holtzmann (in 18G5 ; if. Wiss. Tfu 212-237). Not a current title of the Messiah (for else Jesus would have been attacked for using it), but borrowed by Him as a Mess, title from Dn 7^3, ' the expression used by Dn. reflecting itself in His conscious- ness in a universal and human sense.' It thus denoted Him not merely as the Messiah, but as ' the bearer of all human dignity and rights,' as ' one who held a peculiar and central position among the we* rv* eoOp^raiy.' Not being a cuJrent Mess, title, it was a riddle to those who heard it, and served to veil, not to reveal, His Messiahship.
6. Keim (Der Gesch. Cli rictus, IS60, p. 105 f.; Jesti^ of yaz, tr. iiL 79-92). The title had a double aspect : on the basis first of Ps S'*'-, though aften\'ards also of Dn 7^^^ n expressed Jesus^ sense on the one hand of His human lowliness, on the other hand of His Messianic dignity : in particular. He inten'ied by His use of it to show that even in His capacity as Messiah He was part and parcel of humanity, and to teach His disciples that it was pre-eminently His vocation to 6er\'e and suffer for humanity.
7. Wittichen (1S6S). In Dn 7^3 the ' son of man ' represent* the ethical character of the future Isr. dominion, as opposed to the worldly heathen dominions; this idea is, however, first embodied in an individual in Enoch, from which book Jesus adopted the title. He designated Himself by it as the perfect representative of the idea of man, especially on its ethical side, and at the same time as the Messiah, the chosen organ for the fuller realization of this idea in the world. The idea as pre- sented in Enoch is spiritualized and morally deepened by Jesus, and also combined by Him with associations derived from the OT * servant of Jehovah.'
8. Westcott (l.c. 1S80). The title is a new one, not derived from Dn 7'3 ; and it expresses Christ's relation not to a family, or to a nation, but to all humanity. There is nothing in the Gospels to show that itwas understood as a title of the Messiah. The idea of the true humanity of Christ lies at the foundation of it He was the representative of the whole race, in whom the complete conception of manhood was absolutely attained, and who exhibited all the truest and noblest attributes of the race. Cf. Stanton, The Jeu-ij<h aiid the Christiari Messiah, 1SS6, p. 246 ; 'It is clear that Christ by His phrase represented Himself u the head, the tvpe, the ideal of the race.'
9. Wendt, IhiiQiThe Teachin{j of Jes\i8, ii. 139-151). Not « current Mess, title. Dn 7^3 suggested the combination of creaturely frailty and lowliness with high dignity ; and so Jesus, when He used the title, taught that He was a frail humatj creature, and yet showed that He remembered the proph. word that the Mess, dignity was to belong to *one like unto a son of man.' It was no announcement of His Mess, claims, but rather propounded a problem for His hearers to reflect upon.
lU. J. E. Carpenter (7*Ae First Three Gospels, their Orujin atid delations, 1890, pp. llS-120, 244-257, 372-38S). Jesus never used the expression to designate Himself : He employed it only in the eschatological pass:iges, and in these it was used by Him s^Tiibolically to denote the estabUshment of God's kingdom of righteousness upon earth. The primitive Church anderstood the expression m a personal sense, and then ascribed it, as ft Mess, title, to Jesus Himself.
11. Holsten (Z. /. Wiss. Theol. 1891, pp. 1-79). The title, though not a current Mess, one, was understood by Jesus in that sense, as appears from the fact that He always uses it to express some aspect of the work or activity of the Messiah (cf. Holtzmann : g 15), It was adopted from Dn Ti^*, though this passage gave only the outer form, the contents being supplied by the experience and knowledge of the historical Jesus (afl teacher, sufferer, redeemer, etc): only thus did lie convert ' the visionarj* form of a Messiah, which He found in Daniel, into His own living Mess, personality ' (p. 68, of. 60X He wouid
SON OF MAN
SON OF MAN
587
not, however, have appropriated the title, had He not desired to dcsijjnate Himself as a member of the gentu 'man,' and also reoOK'nized Himself as the uieinber of the genus referred to in Dd -13 (p. 47). The dilHculty (cf. 6 18) of understanding how Je»U9 could have denoted Himself, under the conditions of Hia earthly life, by a term suifgestinjf only the transcendent Beinp; of Paniel, is met by the supposition (which, however, lacks support in the text of I)n. it^elO that the ' one like unto a son of man ' in 0n 7*3 is really to be conceived as having been broujjht before God, and invested by Him with power and prealness, out of a previous state of earthly humility and weak- ness (pp. 61, 67 f.). The title was used by Jesus in His Cialilaian ministry (Mk 2"> etc.) ; for though He Himself understood it in & Mess, sense, this was not iieceagarily placed upon it even by scripture-students, esp. if His owTi a]>pearance and manner of life did not suggest it : it would be taken naturally by those who heard it, including, up to the time of Peter's confession, even the disciples, to signify simply ' the man.' And this would OCTee with His own purpose of keeping for a while His Messiahship a secret (pp. 20, 2'1, ,S1 f., 70f._).