The ' Son of Man ' has a yet more definite and distinguished role in the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch (chs. 37-71), written probably after B.C. 100. Here He is obviously a supernatural person- alitj- and not a symbolic figure, or indefinitely expressed as 'like a son of man.' The Son of Man is not mere man. This is clearly shown in ch. 39, where a cloud and whirlwind carry Enoch away and set him down at the end of the "heavens. There he sees the mansions of the holy, and among these latter ' the Elect One of righteousness and faith,' which is another name for the ' Son of Man ' (v.''). iSIoreover, He sits on God's throne (5P), which is also His own throne (69-'- ""), jjossesses universal dominion (62''), and all judgment is com- mitted to Him (69-"). Various alternative titles are given to Him, viz. ' the Righteous One ' (38-- ^ 536), and ' the Elect One ' (39^ 405 4^^-). We note meanwhile that the Son of Man is also Judge.
Accordingly, we conclude that while the term in Daniel is symbolical of the human rule of God's people Israel, in Enoch it is the designation of a supernatural personality, who holds universal em- pire and wields the office of Judge.
When we pass from this apocalyptic use of the title ' Son of ]Man ' to its employment in the Syn- optic Gospels, we observe a great change. It was without question Christ's favourite designation of Himself. It is noteworthy that in the Synoptics the term relatively occurs twice as often as it does in the Fourth Gospel. It occurs 30 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, and 25 times in Luke. In John it is found only 12 times.
Christ's emploj'inent of the term is by no means uniform. Consequently we are in danger, as Bous- set points out, of giving a one-sided interpretation to the expression, either by taking it predominantly in the eschatological sense of Daniel or the Book of Enoch, or as signifying ideal typical man (as
* Jiid. Eschatologie, p. 10 f.
t On the element of mystery attaching to the use of the pre- position 2 (in Vl{< ^3?), see Volz, ib.
MESSIAH
MESSIAH
175
Schleiermacher assumes).* Probably Charles is on the riglit path when he interprets the Synoptic use of the phrase as involving a combination of two contrasted ideas — the transcendent conception of apocalyptic and the JDeutero-Isaianic ideal of Jahweli's'iSuti'ering Servant. t It is certainly pos- sible that the latter was the prevailing conception in Christ's personal consciousness rather than the former or eschatological use of the phrase ; while the former was the interpretation of the title which dominated the thougiit of the Synoptic writers, and came to be impressed on the iitterances of Jesus. This view seems to be sustained by the fact that
. 0 »
in Aramaic the term 'Son of Man' (t.*-3 r^)
means simply 'man.' On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that Jesus could have emploj^ed so colourless and vague a designation of Himself ; and Bousset is probably right in liis contention, as against Wellhausen, that such a term, emploj-ed in Aramaic, could easilj- come to acquire a special eschatological significance. J In all probability, Jesus on certain momentous occasions so used it. How far it was weighted with the significance that the phrase conveys in the Book of Enoch, when tlie exjjression was actually employed by Jesus, it is difficult to say. It is 'hardly necessary to believe tiiat in the personal consciousness of Jesus the su|>eradded notion of pre-mundane existence was attached to the term, though Jn S^ ('Before Abraham was, I am') would fairly point in this direction. We certainlj- have no clear right to infer it from Mk 12*. ^Moreover, there is some weight in the suggestion whicli a few scholars, including Bousset, have put forth, that the term ' Son of Man ' has been placed in the mouth of Jesus in many cases when He simply used the first personal pronoun. § That He did, however, employ the phrase in an eschatological sense of Hiihself, and with a full consciousness of the sub- lime dignity which it conferred, cannot be denied. Thus, in answer to Pilate's question (Mk 14«- ; cf. Mt 26*^, Lk 22*"), He quotes the well-known Daniel jiassage (7^^), declaring that men would see Him, the Son of Man, sitting at the right liand of power (i.e. of God), and coming in the clouds of heaven. This utterance is certified by the three Synoptic Gospels ; and all three agree in giving it a decisive influence in the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. This testimony, however, carries us one step further. It is hardly possible to dis- sociate in the consciousness of Jesus the assump- tion of this high esciiatological dignity without including in it the judicial function. Tlie Oriental king was also judge. As King or Messiah, Jesus had, with full consent from Himself, been already acclaimed (Mk 11'-"), and, with the title of ' King of the Jews" placed on the cross by the Roman governor. He was crucified (Mk 15'^ ; "cf. vv.'=- "*•=*■-). Moreover, His preaching of the Kingdom of God was closely bound up with the conception of im- pending jiidgment. ' Just as He could not dispense with the ideas of the kingdom and the judgment, if He wished to make Himself intelligible to His countrymen, so He could not dispense with the Messianic idea if He wished to be intelligible to