Jesus had many titles... Messiah, Prince of Peace, Son of God, Son of David, and many more. A title that is of particular interest to me today is his title Son of Man. ONLY JESUS USED THIS TITLE FOR HIMSELF. To quote from George Ladd's opus...
pg. 151
"We maintain that the one solid critical position is the fact that in all our New Testament sources, Jesus and Jesus alone used the term "Son of Man" to deignate himself."
Why is it that only Jesus used this title on himself? There could be so many possibilities... I'll throw down this quote as well to add to the mastication!
pg. 142
"This is the clue to Jesus' use of Messiah. He was the Messiah, but not the warlike conqueror of contemporary Jewish hopes. He avoided the title because of its NATIONALISTIC (my emphasis) implications to the Jews; on occasion he accepted the title, but he reinterpreted it, particularly by his use of the term "Son of Man.""
This blows my mind in light of Jesus calling Peter satan when he doesn't believe that he is going to die. Peter thought that Jesus, and the Kingdom that he brought, was going to save the Jews from the Romans in an earthly sense. Apparently Jesus doesn't like Peter's thought as he calls him satan. But why would Jesus be so angry at Peter for this? Perhaps division plays a roll here? Maybe Jesus is upset at Peter's "zealotness"? How does this relate to today? Why do we still rarely designate Jesus as the Son of Man today? I think that there are probably some deep and ugly roots here that we might want to start dealing with as the body of Christ...
Mini Putt
1 comment:
Good stuff here! It also seems to me that Jesus always seemed to deflect the attention from Himself. This is interesting...definitely makes one think.
Oh, Iowa City is not that bad! It is just like any other college town I suppose. I actually kind of liked it. We will see I guess.
Post a Comment