The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-09-29
Who Is the "Son of Man 2"

By no other term used in the Scriptures
has so much international controversy
been aroused as by the term "Son of
Man" Just what the phrase meant in
the mouth of Jesus, and what was it's his
ltoric or traditional meaning, are questions
that have produced very considerable
| literature in Europe in the last few
months. In the TheoIogische Rundschau
| (Ncs. and y Professor Baldensperger
gives critical account of the controversy
From this account we summarize as fol-
| lows:
! The discussion has gone through re-
markable series of ups and downs. The
difficulty is caused by the seeming con-
trddiction in the term itself Why should
Christ, when apparently wishing to claim
the Messianic office. use this term, while.
! man" in the Scriptures, is commonly
synonymous with weakness and sin? And
how does it come that "Son of Man. and
Son of God" should in His mouth be
| practically equivalent expressions? One
class of interpreters, the older, have in
explanation simply required to the Book
OF Daniel, in which the Ancient of days
is depicted as coming with one like the
Son of Man, this parsonage being gener-
ally believed by the Jews toVbe the prom
lsed Messiah; and Christ adopted this
technical term to denote His own office
Another school of interpreters disregard
this passage in the Book of Daniel and
try to explain this term from contempor-
airy thought. An analysis of the Jewish
theological thought oftentimes brings out
various interpretations of the term none
of which had a pronounced Messianic
n eel ming.
a third stage of the discussion seeks to
connect the terms with the Aramaic
tongue, which Christ and His disciples
spoke. One of the leaders in this third
method of Interpretation is Welhausen.
] the famous Old-Testament specialist 1t
has been agreed that the equivalent term
bs.rnash, in the Aramaie, signifies moth
ing else than human being" or a. and
it is thought that Jesus thereby wished
merely to use circumlocution for the
personal pronoun of the first person In
this sense it could have had no Messianic
! significance, but anybody else could have
en- ployed it with equal propriety
The discussion is not concluded and has
! 50 lar led to no satisfactory results Such
recognized theologians as the Dutch pro-
lessor Eerdmons and the German Letz-
, man have strongly opposed this last view,
and Wellhausen has not been able entire
iy to resist these arguments. In more
recent writings he has retracted in a
measure his former view. and acknowl-
edges that the term must have had a
: Messanic meaning: but he still maintains
, that critical analysis of the Gospel text
Will show that Jesus Himself never used
, 1t in this sense"
Baldensperger himself, in his account of
ttiic coutIoNefSy5 cOnclu0eS that the inter-
!, probation Will largely depend upon the po-
sitlon which the student takes on the wi
; der subject of the person of Christ One
of the most significant utterances on the
subject comes from Professor Harnack in
(, his new work on the Essence of Christi
! anity' f'Das Wesen des Christenten-
[ tums,'' p. so. He saws:
! In reference TO the term Son OF Man
1t should be stated that prominent theolo-
! glans, and among them even Wellhausen,
have doubted if Jesus ever used this term
to designate Himself as the Messiah.
however, can not find any reason to agree
: with this view. On the contrary, / am
: convinced that it would be gross violation
1 OF all principles of Interpretation to flrc
in this term anything else than avname
: for Jesus as the promised Messiah"