Need An Article

[greenbaggins]

Does anyone have a copy of Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie? I need the F.F. Bruce article in it on the background to the Son of Man Sayings (pp. 50-70). I would be happy either buying the book or paying for a copy of that article. Please let me know.

 

[Phil D.]

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/Christ-the-lord/sonofman_bruce.pdf

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I appreciate the scholarship that went into the article, but I think it's overly reliant on extrabiblical sources and it's conclusions are in the end not that helpful.

One of the problems in my opinion is how it begins, then dwells, in Jesus' and the NT's use of the expression; and tries to see how inter-Testamental and contemporary (to NT) Judaism may shed light on the public's and disciple's incurious, unhesitating acceptance of the title "Son of Man." The article's investigation of the OT origins of the expression are perfunctory. But it is exactly in and by the OT expressions--spare though they are (but hardly limited to Dan.7:13)--that the meaning and import of the phrase is made abundantly clear.

Bruce references only Act.7:56 outside the gospels, ignoring (?) Heb.2:6 refs. to Ps.8:6, which is, frankly, pivotal to the proper understanding of the term "son of man" both OT and NT. David asks, "What is a man (mere creature, but the crown of creation) that still you are mindful of him; or even the summum representative (son of) man that you should care for him?" The writer to Hebrews recognizes both David's personal humility, but also his prescient prophecy (knowing himself a type) of One who would rightly possess the divine approval. The writer to Hebrews pulls a double-entendre out of the psalmist's phrase "made a little lower than the angels," by adding the expression "for a little while," till He is crowned with glory and honor, which the NT writer associates with the Ascension.

In my judgment, Jesus' delighted appropriation and frequent use of the self-identification of "the Son of Man" is definitive proof that Covenant Theology is correct and the true hermeneutical grid for Scripture. Christ did not choose this (underused?) name mainly to deflect erroneous (worldly) messianic expectations for the Coming One. Jesus is the Son of Man(kind), the Representative Man, the Covenant Man, the perfect Mediator, the one true Israelite, the Israel of God.

 

[greenbaggins]

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/Christ-the-lord/sonofman_bruce.pdf

Thanks so much, Phil. Searched for it online, but must have done so in the wrong places. This is great.

 

[greenbaggins]

I appreciate the scholarship that went into the article, but I think it's overly reliant on extrabiblical sources and it's conclusions are in the end not that helpful.

One of the problems in my opinion is how it begins, then dwells, in Jesus' and the NT's use of the expression; and tries to see how inter-Testamental and contemporary (to NT) Judaism may shed light on the public's and disciple's incurious, unhesitating acceptance of the title "Son of Man." The article's investigation of the OT origins of the expression are perfunctory. But it is exactly in and by the OT expressions--spare though they are (but hardly limited to Dan.7:13)--that the meaning and import of the phrase is made abundantly clear.

Bruce references only Act.7:56 outside the gospels, ignoring (?) Heb.2:6 refs. to Ps.8:6, which is, frankly, pivotal to the proper understanding of the term "son of man" both OT and NT. David asks, "What is a man (mere creature, but the crown of creation) that still you are mindful of him; or even the summum representative (son of) man that you should care for him?" The writer to Hebrews recognizes both David's personal humility, but also his prescient prophecy (knowing himself a type) of One who would rightly possess the divine approval. The writer to Hebrews pulls a double-entendre out of the psalmist's phrase "made a little lower than the angels," by adding the expression "for a little while," till He is crowned with glory and honor, which the NT writer associates with the Ascension.

In my judgment, Jesus' delighted appropriation and frequent use of the self-identification of "the Son of Man" is definitive proof that Covenant Theology is correct and the true hermeneutical grid for Scripture. Christ did not choose this (underused?) name mainly to deflect erroneous (worldly) messianic expectations for the Coming One. Jesus is the Son of Man(kind), the Representative Man, the Covenant Man, the perfect Mediator, the one true Israelite, the Israel of God.

This is true in general of New Testament Scholarship on the Son of Man. I have about a dozen books on the topic on my shelf, and only one of them gives any sort of proper attention to Ezekiel, which is my area of research. Ezekiel is more important to the background of Jesus using the term than Daniel is, although I agree that Psalm 8 is also crucial.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Ezekiel is more important to the background of Jesus using the term than Daniel is

In which is found the overwhelming (too strong?) preponderance of uses in the OT. Only about 90% of (over 100 OT) instances, you think? But it's not just that the prophet is addressed repeatedly in this manner: one must attend to the Word given him to proclaim.

In contrast, Daniel uses this term exactly twice, one of them when the prophet is addressed by God in like manner to that used often in Ezekiel--not to slight in the least the significance of the term where he employs it. If someone seeks to thoroughly understand the way the Gospels show Christ using this title, it seems inescapable to me that one should obviously be steeped in the OT prophetic hope--and perhaps no place more than Ezekiel.

My comment about CT can be read against the backdrop of the prevailing (for the last century) mindset that emphasizes discontinuity between the NT and OT. Jesus--whether he is all-new relative to the past, or instituting a grand "parenthesis" into a history that otherwise focuses on a particular genetic strain of humanity--they might say he is free to randomly appropriate relics of the OT and repurpose them acontextually. These modern interpreters may be liberal or dispensational (in various senses, FFB fitting into this mold) or perhaps even Jewish, but they all agree on the utterly disjunctive nature of the 1C Christian split with ancient Judaism. Somewhat explaining the weakness of the scholarship in this period.

I hope you can share the fruit of your investigations in the future. God speed.