Introduction
In this article I consider the historical approach to Jesus and who he claimed to be by looking at the title ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospels. We adopt the historical method of NT scholars (with its limits) in order to see how far this method will take us in our understanding of this title.
Since the nineteenth century historians have been on the quest for the (so-called) ‘historical Jesus’, by which they seek to recover who Jesus ‘truly’ was and not just what the gospels claim for him.[1] This has principally involved using the original sayings of Jesus as found in the hypothetical ‘Q’ source,[2] and the stripping away of many of the “later” key descriptions associated with the “Christ of faith”. For instance, the title ‘Son of God’, though in use by 50’s C.E. (at the latest),[3] is poorly attested amongst the earliest sayings of Jesus[4] and is often dismissed by historians as inauthentic. Though the title ‘Messiah’ (or ‘Christ’) is used frequently in the gospels, in Mark’s gospel Jesus is at pains to keep this knowledge secret.[5] In his book, The Messianic Secret, William Wrede put forward the thesis that Mark’s statements were apologetic; Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah but had never heard Jesus claim to be Messiah, and so Mark accounts for this by asserting that Jesus kept it a secret.[6] This has led many historians to conclude that the Messianic sayings of Jesus are also inauthentic.
This historical ‘quest’ has led to the thesis that Jesus was nothing more than a wandering teacher.[7] However, there is one title used by Jesus in the gospels that is accepted by most scholars to be authentic (though not all think it was a title); this is “the Son of Man”.
The Son of Man
It is significant that ‘the Son of Man’ is by far the most frequent title that Jesus applies to himself, both in the Synoptics and in John, and is also found in the Gospel of Thomas.[8] As a title it never occurs in any of the New Testament epistles, and is used only once in Acts.[9] Though the absence of this title from the writings of Paul has been taken as proof that it was not primitive, the title is included in seven sayings in the (hypothetical) Q source.[10] Rather, if Paul had used the title ‘Son of Man’ to prove some point of doctrine the historians would have greater reason to suspect contrivance. The fact that all the gospel traditions use this title indicates that it is most likely part of the original Jesus tradition. Assuming that the title ‘the Son of Man’ was part of the original Jesus tradition (and used by Jesus himself), our problem is ascertaining what this title would have meant to the first believers (and to Jesus himself). Traditionally, this title has been seen as a synonym for Messiah and also related to the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel’s prophecy.[11] However, both these associations are problematic.
‘Son of Man’ as Messiah
The idea that the ‘Son of Man’ is a synonym for Messiah rests on particularly shaky ground. The principle reason for this association is the use that Jesus himself makes of this title, which (for our purposes) would make our argument circular. When Jesus asks, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” Peter’s (inspired) reply is “the Christ”,[12] which would imply that that the two titles were not synonymous. The same distinction is demonstrated by the fact that while ‘Christ’ occurs 430 times in the New Testament epistles, ‘the Son of Man’ does not occur once. Also the gospel usage of the two titles is markedly different: Jesus seems to attempt to keep his identity as Messiah a secret[13] and yet he openly refers to himself as ‘the Son of Man’.
There appear to be no pre-Christian references connecting ‘Son of Man’ with the Messiah, unless they are contained in allusions to the Daniel 7.
Daniel 7
In this chapter, Daniel recounts a vision he had of four beasts which he is told represent four kingdoms.[14] The fourth beast is “exceedingly dreadful”[15] and from it arises a “little horn”[16] which persecutes “the saints”.[17] Then Daniel sees the throne of “the Ancient of Days” and the “court was seated” and the beast and the horn are destroyed.[18]
I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed. Dan 7:13-14 [NKJV]
While the NKJV renders the Aramaic bar enash as “the Son of Man” to associate it with Jesus Christ, there is no definite article in the Aramaic or the Septuagint.[19] The word “like” indicates that Daniel is thinking of a figure of human appearance.[20] It is evident that in Daniel 7 “son of man” is not used as a title. It is possible that the intention was that this manlike figure represented “the saints”, who are also said to be given “the kingdom”.[21]
Maurice Casey attempts to show that no one at the time of Jesus would have interpreted the manlike figure as single individual or associated that symbol with the Messiah. He begins by assuming that the original interpretation of Daniel was that followed by the majority of modern commentators: that the fourth beast is the Seleucid Empire, that the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, and that the manlike figure represents the (expected) triumph of the Maccabees.[22] He interprets the prevalence of this interpretation amongst the “later Syrian Christian fathers” as the preservation of this original tradition,[23] while the Messianic interpretations of the Western Fathers and Rabbinical Judaism are later developments in the light of the Jesus tradition.[24] He dismisses the evidence of the Similitudes of Enoch given that they identify ‘the Son of Man’ with Enoch[25] and are, in any case, probably later than Jesus’ traditions.[26] Casey concludes that “the Jews had no Son of Man concept”,[27] that is, they were not expecting the coming of one called ‘the Son of Man’.
This conclusion is not as sure as it might appear. We lack examples of how pre-Christian Jewish writers interpreted Daniel 7. The Qumran scrolls make no reference to the ‘one like a son of man’[28] and Josephus gives us few clues, omitting any discussion of Daniel 7 from his overview of those visions.[29] Except for possible allusions in 4 Ezra, the earliest interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’ are those of the New Testament writers, which universally identify him as Jesus.[30]
However, we have some indications as to how the Jews of Jesus’ day might have interpreted Daniel 7. Josephus does interpret the parallel vision of Daniel 2 and implies that the fourth kingdom was the present empire (i.e. Rome). He does not interpret “the stone”[31] asserting that its fulfillment is still future,[32] though it is likely that he did not want to predict the destruction of Rome given his own situation (living as a pensioner of the emperor). The Qumran fragment 4Q246 alludes frequently to Daniel 7. Though it prophesies that the people of God (plural) will be given “an eternal dominion” and that God “will give peoples into their hands”,[33] it connects this with coming forth of one called “the son of God”.[34]
Casey’s assertion that the Rabbis reinterpreted Daniel 7 in line with Christian concepts is odd when, given the antagonism of Rabbinical Judaism towards Christianity, the contrary seems more likely.[35] When Rabbi Akiba attempted to read in Daniel 7 a reference to the Messiah, he is rebuked for profanity, presumably because his interpretation was too close to that of the Christians.[36] Like Josephus, the Rabbis interpreted the fourth beast as Rome.
We cannot be certain but it is possible that there existed pre-Christian interpretations of Daniel 7 which expected the manifestation of the ‘Son of Man’ figure in a single individual. If this was the case then the use of the title ‘the Son of Man’ to identify someone with that figure would not be unreasonable, even though Daniel 7 does not use such a title.
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
The evidence of John’s gospel is that people weren’t expecting the appearance of one called ‘the Son of Man’. When the messengers of Pharisees come to John the Baptist to find out who he is, they ask if he is one of the three figures whom they are expecting to come (that is, the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet).[37] They do not ask him if he is ‘the Son of Man’, presumably because such a figure was not expected. When Jesus preaches to the crowds about his impending death, they question him, saying:
We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?[38]
Even if John’s remarks are not historical (as many scholars believe), they still likely demonstrate beliefs from the first century. But if the Jews were not expecting the coming of one called ‘the Son of Man’ then why does Jesus apply this title to himself so frequently.
In the Old Testament ‘a son of man’ was a common synonym for ‘a man’,[39] generally used to stress the subject’s humanity[40] (often as juxtaposed against the divinity of YHWH).[41] Throughout his visions Ezekiel is styled ‘son of man’.[42] The use of ‘son of man’ in Aramaic was “not uncommon in Jewish writings of the early centuries AD”.[43] In the 1960’s, Vermes demonstrated convincingly the character of the Aramaic phrase ‘son of man’ (bar enash) as being quite general and therefore was too general a phrase to be used as title.[44] Therefore the theory was put forward by Vermes and by Casey that ‘son of man’ was a form of self-reference on Jesus’ part (i.e. “I”) which was interpreted as a title when the tradition was translated into Greek. It was only at this point that the association with Daniel 7 was made and the “inauthentic” allusions of Jesus to Daniel 7 were added to gospels.[45] Barnabas Lindars suggested a slightly different theory asserting that Jesus used the phrase ‘son of man’ generally and so the ‘son of man’ sayings were originally intended to refer to all men.[46]
However, despite the extensive Aramaic examples and linguistic arguments in favour of such theories, they are not without their critics. Michael Goulder has pointed out that ‘son of man’ cannot always be general since in many cases the ‘son of man’ sayings can only refer to Jesus.[47] Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz extend this point, asking why “an expression which in principle anyone could use and which could mean anyone” was so clearly connected with Jesus by early Christians, who so soon believed that Jesus was more than a man?[48] Frederick Borsch gives much more extensive criticism, saying:
“It was hard to hear Jesus so frequently speaking in such a roundabout way, harder still to imagine that all four of the evangelists could have completely misunderstood the idiom when there must still have been a few ear-witnesses who could have corrected the error, or at least several persons who know both Greek and Aramaic.”[49]
This last criticism is particularly effective, especially given the likelihood that some of the gospels may have originally been written in Aramaic. It seems then that we cannot ascribe the use of ‘Son of man’ to common parlance.
Alternatives
Borsch puts forward the thesis that the title ‘Son of man’ was an allusion to the mythology of the ‘Primal Man’ that has parallels in many cultures.[50] However, Borsch is forced to admit that due to the lack of evidence regarding these mythologies the link between them and ‘Son of man’ in the gospels “must remain tenuous”.[51] A variation on this approach might be that the title ‘Son of man’ meant “the Last Man” in contrast to the First Man (Adam), following the Pauline Adam-Christology.[52] Once again, though, the difficulty is the lack of positive evidence from the gospel tradition.
Goulder suggests that the title ‘Son of Man’ came from the desire of the (Pauline) Christians to justify the incarnation from Scripture. Goulder notes several Pauline allusions to Psalm 8[53] and points out how the writer to the Hebrews uses Psalm 8 to justify the claim that Jesus is greater than the angels (“You have put all things in subjection under his feet”) despite being a man (“You have made him a little lower[54] than the angels”).[55] Since the Psalm says it is “the son of man” that has been made lower than the angels,[56] Goulder sees the use of this Psalm as the source for the title ‘Son of Man’,[57] which the (Pauline) Christians wrote into the gospels “as the title of a pre-existent human spiritual being”.[58] One argument in favour of this thesis might be that, unlike Dan 7:13, in Psalm 8 ‘son of man’ has the definite article in the Septuagint (h’ ui`o.j avnqrw,pou). The substantial drawback is that Psalm 8 is never quoted in the any of the four gospels, while ‘Son of Man’ is not used by any later writer (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc) to show that Jesus was “a pre-existent human spiritual being”. Also there seems to be no reason for the writer to the Hebrews to identify Jesus with the ‘son of man’ in this psalm unless that title was already associated with Jesus. In any case this theory presupposes that Jesus did not use the title ‘Son of Man’ which, given the wide attestation in all gospel traditions, seems most unlikely.
Examining the Gospel Evidence
It is likely that Jesus used the phrase ‘son of man’ and in the Greek ‘Son of Man’ appears as a title. Unless we suppose that the gospel writers (and their circles) were completely ignorant of Aramaic idiom, the thesis that Jesus meant ‘I’ or ‘a man’ seems unlikely. The fact that there appears to be no precedent for the ‘Son of Man’ title does not undermine the fact that it could have been used as such if defined so. Though it may seem odd that anyone should choose such a common idiom as a title, if they wished to embody some fact about themselves using those words then to turn them into a title would not be unreasonable. As Borsch states:
Even if it is held that bar nāšā was a phrase which could have meant ‘I’ or any man, this is no guarantee that in a certain circle it could not have been given a special meaning.[59]
Therefore we are faced with the possibility that Jesus could have created the title ‘Son of Man’ himself.
Trying to determine which gospel material contains ‘authentic’ sayings of Jesus is almost impossible to do without making our argument circular. For instance, Casey states that the gospel sayings alluding to Daniel 7 and Jesus’ role in the Last Days are “inauthentic”[60] but this assertion is based upon his conclusion that there was no pre-Christian ‘Son of Man’ interpretation of Daniel 7. Another common presupposition for the excision of many gospel sayings (including ‘Son of Man’ sayings) is that Jesus did not originally claim to be the Messiah.[61] This led John O’Neill, in his defence of the ‘Son of Man’ sayings, to the rather inconsistent position that Jesus neither claimed nor denied to be the Son of Man.[62] It cannot be acceptable to decide the historicity of the ‘Son of Man’ sayings on such a basis. I will, therefore, make no claims about which sayings are (or are not) authentic but will begin my examination with the bare minimum that scholars (Casey, Lindars, etc) allow to be original, that is, the Q sayings.
The Q sayings do not include the quotation for Dan 7:13. However, they do contain sayings regarding the “coming” of the Son of Man at some point in the future.[63] The following saying is even more significant:
Every one who admits in public that they know me, the son of man will acknowledge before the angels of God. But the one who disowns me in public, the son of man will disown before the angels of God.[64]
This verse implies that the Son of Man will appear before the angels of God, that is, that the Son of Man will ascend into heaven. Daniel 7:13 seems the likely precedent for this concept.[65] Connected with the concept of the ‘coming’ of the Son of Man, we have the elements of the Second Coming tradition recorded in the canonical gospels.
The Gospel of Mark records several ‘Son of Man’ sayings which contain similar concepts.
“For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” Mark 8:38 [NKJV].
Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. Mark 13:26 [NKJV].
The first passage connects the two concepts found in the Q sayings of the ‘coming’ of the Son of Man and the appearing before the angels. The second passage undoubtedly alludes to Daniel 7:13 and connects it with the Second Coming.
Matthew and Luke add considerably to both these traditions with frequent references to the Son of Man (1) ‘coming’[66] (2) with angels[67] (3) with the clouds[68] (4) to sit on a throne[69] (5) and to judge the nations.[70] This is without the infamous exclamation before the High Priest.[71]
It is significant that these concepts find acceptance in early Christian literature. Historians may doubt the historicity of Stephen’s vision of Jesus in heaven, but it is significant that Stephen styles him “the Son of Man”.[72] Paul refers to Jesus coming with the clouds[73] and coming with the angels.[74] Paul certainly refers to Jesus judging the nations[75] upon a throne.[76] The Didache likewise refers to the coming of “the Lord” with the angels and with the clouds of heaven.[77] The Gospel of John, while not alluding directly to this tradition, does record Jesus saying that “the Son of Man” will ascend into heaven.[78] By the time Revelation is being written Daniel 7 has been completely (re)interpreted with Jesus as the Son of Man who will return from heaven to judge the nations and claim the Kingdom.[79]
These frequent allusions to Dan 7:13 in the earliest Christian writings, particularly in Paul, suggest that the identification of Jesus with the ‘one like a son of man’ was primitive. The evidence in Q and Mark link the title ‘Son of Man’ with allusions to Dan 7:13. Since it is likely that Jesus used the title ‘Son of Man’ of himself then perhaps the best way to explain both his reason for using it and the early Christian allusions to Dan 7:13 is that Jesus identified himself with the ‘one like a son of man’ and used the title ‘Son of Man’ to express this identity. We have seen that it is likely that the Jews of Jesus’ day associated Daniel’s fourth beast with the Roman Empire and the expectation that one would come to overthrow the Roman Empire was common. It would not be unreasonable to suppose that Jews of Jesus’ day read in Daniel 7 a prophecy of a heavenly conqueror/judge coming to overthrow the Roman beast.[80]
A ‘Son of Man’ Christology
If Jesus associated himself with the ‘one like a son of man’ of Daniel 7, as seems likely, then he was claiming to be both a heavenly mediator and an eschatological judge/king. He would have expected his ascension into heaven, to appear before the throne of God and to receive from God all the nations of world to rule over (with ‘the saints’). The return from heaven to the earth at the head of the armies of heaven would have been a natural development of this interpretation, either for Jesus or the early believers. Daniel 7 gives no hint that the ‘one like a son of man’ pre-existed in heaven, his ascension seems to be an entrance (rather than a return) to heaven and this idea is reflected in the gospel usage of the ‘Son of Man’ concept. The prevalence of the ‘Son of Man’ imagery and title implies early belief in the ascension of Jesus into heaven to inherit the world as his kingdom, and therefore, the belief that Jesus, though born a man, had heavenly status.
If the ‘historical’ Jesus claimed heavenly status then it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Son of God sayings are authentic. If the ‘historical’ Jesus claimed to be the one coming to claim the Kingdom then it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Messiah sayings are authentic. If Jesus identified himself with the Son of Man from Daniel 7 then perhaps the ‘historical Jesus’ and the ‘Christ of faith’ are not so different after all.
[1] For a recent review of the research see D. B. Gowler, The Historical Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 2007).
[2] “Q” is the name given to the material common to Matthew and Luke, which is regarded as a now lost source for the Gospel writers; see J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann and J. S. Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). For an online edition (from which we take our references) see Burton Mack’s translation: [cited 19 July 2007] http://www.cygnus-study.com/pageq.html.
[3] Rms 1:4, 2 Cor 1:19, Gal 2:20, Eph 4:13.
[4] Only three references in Mark (1:1, 3:11, 15:39) and none in the Gospel of Thomas.
[5] For example, Mark 8:29-30.
[6] W. Wrede, The Messianic Secret (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. ltd., 1971), 25. For a selection of essays on this topic, see C. Tuckett, ed., The Messianic Secret (London: SPCK, 1987).
[7] For instance, see Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (London: SCM Press, 1983).
[8] Gospel of Thomas, 86. For a recent print edition, see M. Myer, The Gospel of Thomas (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).
[9] Acts 7:56.
[10] QS8 (Luke 6:20-23), QS18 (Luke 7:31-35), QS19 (Luke 9:57-62), QS32 (Luke11:16, 29-32), QS37 (Luke 12:8-12), QS41 (Luke 12:39-40), QS60 (Luke 17:23-37).
[11] Dan 7:13.
[12] Matthew 16:13-16 [ESV], cp. Mark 8:27-29, Luke 9:18-20.
[13] For example, Matt 16:20.
[14] Dan 7:17.
[15] Dan 7:19.
[16] Dan 7:8.
[17] Dan 7:25.
[18] Dan 7:9-11.
[19] Compare the translations, for instance, the NRSV and ESV.
[20] Michael Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions (London: SCM Press, 1994), 150, states that “The phrase just means ‘man’ and it is used when man is contrasted either with God or with animals”. The contrast between the kingdoms of the beasts and the kingdom of the manlike figure would be a way of pointing to the higher moral character of the latter (cp. Daniel 4:16, 7:4). H. E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (London: SCM Press, 1965), 23, asserts that “the word ‘like’ (a human being) of the vision hints not only at the similarity to men but even more at a mysterious dissimilarity. It is not a man who is appearing but one like a man”.
[21] Dan 7:22, 27. G. Theissen and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM Press, 1998), 543, aver that “Because the beasts in Dan. 7 are symbols for world powers, their counterpart, the ‘one like a man’, has also been seen as a symbol for a collective, the people of Israel”.
[22] M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979), 40.
[23] Casey, Son of Man, 58.
[24] Casey, Son of Man, 80. He argues that once the Son of Man began to be used by the early Christians as a title for Jesus then the association with Daniel 7 was made and so the reinterpretation of manlike figure was required.
[25] Casey, Son of Man, 99.
[26] This section of the book of Enoch is only extant in the Ethiopic. Geza Vermes, “Introduction”, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 17, states “Book 2 [of Enoch] … which describes the heavenly apocalyptic figure called ‘son of man’ … is missing at Qumran. Thus the Aramaic Enoch does not support their [i.e. New Testament scholars] speculations any more than do the Greek manuscripts”.
[27] Casey, Son of Man, 139.
[28] Vermes “Introduction”, 17.
[29] Ant. 10.11.7.
[30] Matt 26:64, Mark 14:62, Rev 1:13, 14:14.
[31] Dan 2:35, 44-45.
[32] Ant. 10.10.4.
[33] Compare Dan 7:14, 27.
[34] The DSS text is taken from the Vermes edition.
[35] F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984), 64, states that “In a number of instances interpretations which had formerly been regarded as quite proper and respectable by orthodox Jews were ruled out as inadmissible when Christians began to use them to prove that Jesus was the Messiah”.
[36] In answer to the question why is ‘thrones’ plural in Daniel 7, Rabbi Akiba responded “one for God and one for David”. Rabbi José responded “Akiba, how long will you profane the Shekinah? It is one for justice and one for righteousness”, b. Sanhedrin 38b.
[37] John 1:19-21.
[38] John 12:34; also see John 9:36-37.
[39] Job 35:8, Isa 56:2, Jer 49:18, 33, 50:40, 51:43.
[40] Pss 146:3.
[41] Num 23:19, Job 25:6, Pss 144:3.
[42] Ezek 2:6, 8, 3:25, 4:1, 5:1, etc., also see Dan 8:17.
[43] Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions, 150.
[44] Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 168, goes on to assert that “in Galilean Aramaic, i.e. the language of Jesus and his first followers, ‘son of man’ was at least occasionally employed as a circumlocution. By contrast, no trace survives of its titular use, from which it must be inferred that there is no case to be made for an eschatological or Messianic office-holder generally known as ‘the son of man’ ”. See also J. C. O’Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 123.
[45] Casey, Son of Man, 238-9.
[46] B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man (London: SPCK, 1983), 24.
[47] Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions, 153.
[48] Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 550.
[49] F. H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (London: SCM Press, 1967), 24.
[50] In The Son of Man in Myth and History, Borsch refers to numerous examples of this type of mythology: the Archanthropos of the Samothracians, the Anthropos of the Valentinians (57), the ‘Man’ of Monoimus the Arabian, ‘Adamus’ of the Barbel-Gnostics (58), the reinterpretation of Adam in certain Jewish sources (68), ‘Gayomart’ of Zoroastrianism (75), ‘Yima’ of Persia (79) and the parallels to Mithra (82). He states that elements of this Man-mythology have been in places “as distant as China or Scandinavia”, 68.
[51] The Son of Man in Myth and History, 86.
[52] 1 Cor 15:45.
[53] For example, “under his feet” (1 Cor 15:24), “put all thing under his feet” (Eph 1:22); see Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions, 154.
[54] Goulder recommends the translation “for a little while was made lower than the angels” since this coheres with his claim that the writer to the Hebrews believed that Jesus was “an eternal being” who became incarnate “for a little while”, 155. The Masoretic text reads “made a little lower” and, while Goulder’s translation is possible from the LXX, there is no reason to suppose that either the Septuagint or the writer to the Hebrews deviated from that idea.
[55] Compare Pss 8:4-6 and Heb 2:5-9. See also Goulder A Tale of Two Missions, 154-5.
[56] Pss 8:4
[57] A Tale of Two Missions, 155.
[58] A Tale of Two Missions, 157.
[59] The Son of Man in Myth and History, 26.
[60] Son of Man, 238.
[61] See Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, 188.
[62] Who Did Jesus Think He Was?, 130.
[63] QS41 (Luke 12:39-40), QS60 (Luke 17:23-37).
[64] QS37 (Luke 12:8-12).
[65] Hence, “he came to the Ancient of Days, and they [i.e. the angels] brought him near before Him” (Dan 7:13 [NKJV]).
[66] Matt 10:23, 16:27, 24:27, 24:44, 25:13, 25:31, Luke 9:26, 12:40, 18:8, 21:27 (also Luke 17:22-30) cp. “one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven” (Dan 7:13).
[67] Matthew 13:41, 16:27, 24:31, 25:31, Luke 9:26, 12:8, cp. “they brought him near before Him” (Dan 7:13).
[68] Matt 24:30, Luke 21:27, cp. “coming with the clouds of heaven” (Dan 7:13).
[69] Matthew 19:28, 25:31, cp. “then to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom” (Daniel 7:14).
[70] Matt 19:28, 25:32ff, cp. “I watched till thrones were put in place” (Dan 7:9), “the court was seated and the books were opened” (Dan 7:10).
[71] Matt 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:69.
[72] Acts 7:55-56.
[73] 1 Thess 4:17.
[74] 1Thess 3:13, 2 Thess 1:17.
[75] Rms 2:16, 1 Cor 4:5, 2 Tim 4:1.
[76] Rms 14:10, 2 Cor 5:10.
[77] Didache 16:1, 7-8.
[78] John 3:13, 6:62.
[79] Rev 1:7, 1:3, 2:25, 3:5, 3:21, 4:2-6, 5:6-7, 6:16-17, 7:17, 11:15, 13:1-8, 14:14-16, 19:11-21, 20:4-6, 20:11-15.
[80] Theissen and Merz present a similar solution. They note the problem that the “heavenly being” of Daniel 7 (‘one like a son of man’) was a future judge which Jesus identified with the events of his second coming, while identifying himself with the ‘Son of Man’ in the present. So they say: “Jesus represents in the present the future Son of Man”, Historical Jesus, 552.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One