Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] THE SON OF MAN

Expand Messages
  • David Cavanagh
    ... I would suggest that Paul does not use Son of Man because his mission is to Gentiles, and the term is Jewish and would have made sense only to a Jewish
    Message 1 of 45 , May 28 4:00 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On 26/05/2012 19:18, Ronald Price wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > .....you may have difficulty explaining why Paul (in his extant
      > letters) never used the label if it was thought to be messianic. My belief
      > is that the label was assigned to Jesus by the original apostles precisely
      > because it was *not* messianic. For after the crucifixion they had found
      > themselves in a dilemma, namely why their scriptures never foretold
      > that the
      > Messiah would be crucified. Their solution was to suppose that the
      > designation "Messiah" must have been incorrect, and that he was
      > actually the
      > "Son of Man", who would soon appear in the clouds to claim his
      > kingdom. Paul
      > accepted the messianic status of Jesus, and rejected the label ³Son of
      > Man²
      > presumably because of its relatively lowly status, especially when
      > compared
      > with ³Son of God².
      >
      I would suggest that Paul does not use "Son of Man" because his mission
      is to Gentiles, and the term is Jewish and would have made sense only to
      a Jewish audience....

      The idea that the disciples imagined "the Son of Man" coming on the
      clouds to claim his Kingdom is interesting in two points (at least!).
      First, in Daniel the Son of Man come to God, not to earth. The purpose
      is vindication, not establishing the Kingdom, and a growing number of
      Jesus' scholars seem to interpret language about the Son of Man coming
      on the clouds as referring to vindication rather than Jesus "return".
      Secondly, if that point be contested, I'm left wondering whether an
      expectation that the Son of Man will return to claim his Kingdom does
      not run counter to the assertion that the title is not Messianic.
      Granted that there was a wide spectrum of Messianic expectations, surely
      a major theme was that the Messiah would come as God's appointed King?

      David Cavanagh
      Major (The Salvation Army)
      Rome (Italy)



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dennis Goffin
      David, Luke does. Compare Lk 21:32 written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Mk 9:1 & 13:30 which speaks of a generation over 30 years earlier. For an analysis
      Message 45 of 45 , Jun 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        David,
        Luke does. Compare Lk 21:32 written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Mk 9:1 & 13:30 which speaks of a generation over 30 years earlier. For an analysis in depth of this question, I recommend Casey's book " The Solution to the Son of Man Problem" (2009)
        Dennis
        ---------------------

        Dennis Goffin

        Chorleywood UK


        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        From: ron-price@...
        Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:11:08 +0100
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The coming kingdom


























        Apologies for the late reply. I've been on holiday in the English Lake

        District.



        David Cavanagh wrote:



        > If, as you suggest below, the original statement was thought to refer to

        > a return of Jesus, and the evangelists increasingly saw this as a

        > problem because it was not happening, and attempted to adapt the

        > materials, why do they not drop the reference to the present generation

        > of "some who are standing here"



        David,



        Each synoptic evangelist had a problem when dealing with an embarrassing

        text. Such a text could be repeated in full, abbreviated, altered, and/or

        put in a context which essentially changed its meaning. Thus the dropping of

        a reference would depend on how the particular evangelist felt at the time

        about the degree of embarrassment the reference caused.



        > ..... But Mark is the earliest gospel, and I very much doubt that Jesus

        > "failure to return" would actually be a problem as early as AD65-70.



        Mark, the earliest gospel, was probably written in 71 CE, shortly after the

        fall of Jerusalem. This was fully 40 years after the crucifixion, and plenty

        of time to be worried about the absence of a 'return' which had been

        expected to be imminent. Certainly Paul had expected it to be within his

        lifetime when he wrote to the Thessalonians: " ... we who are alive, who are

        left until the coming of the Lord ..." (1 Thess 4:15). But by the time he

        wrote the Philippian 'Joyful Letter', he seems to have changed his mind.

        (Php 1:21-26).



        Ron Price,



        Derbyshire, UK



        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.