What is of interest here in this passage of Matthew is the linking of "The Son of Man," with "The Christ (Messiah)," and "The Song of the Living God."
Thus the following:
A The Son of Man + B The Christ
B The Christ + C The Son of the Living God
Therefore, A The Son of Man = C The Son of the Living God.
Jesus' commendation of Peter's response to the initial question in verses 13 and 15 is correct in verse 16.
We as preachers and theologians preach about Peter's response in verse 16 that we forget or ignore the initial question in verse 13, "Who do men say that I am?, and second question inb verse 15, Who do you say that I am?"
Peter made the connection in verse 16, The Son of Man is "The Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Thus, Daniel 7 and Psalm 2 speak to Jesus as to His Person, His Deity and is reflected in Matthew 16.
Both Daniel and Ezekiel wrote in exile. They have forfeited the covenant blessings. God calls Ezekiel "son of man" almost as an insult - he does not call him priest or Israelite, he has lost the right to these. "Son of man" emphasizes the humility/humiliation of Ezekiel. In Daniel, son of man emphasizes the upside of this - "He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him." Jesus did not come simply to save priests or Israelites, he did not just touch the best of humanity and leave the rest of us helpless, rather his very humility became the basis for his ability to be a universal savior. "but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth." "Son of Man" captures both his humiliation and subsequent glorification perfectly.
Dear Michael,
Thank you for this insightful post.
May I ask how this works with your Gospel preterism?
For example, Jesus in the Olivet Discourse refers to the pending destruction of Jerusalem and his self-reference to the Danielic Son of Man.
I assume your preterism does not include his self-reference to the Danielic Son of Man.
Is that correct? Thank you very much for your consideration.
-James
Matthew 16:
Jesus asks His disciples, Who do men say the Son of Man is?
Τίνα λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;
The disciples respond with different persons
οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· Οἱ μὲν Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ Ἰερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν.
Jesus then askes the disciples, Who do you say that I am?
λέγει αὐτοῖς· Ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι;
Peter answers the question with , You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God
ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· Σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.
Jesus commends the answer of Peter as being correct.
ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλʼ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς·
What is of interest here in this passage of Matthew is the linking of "The Son of Man," with "The Christ (Messiah)," and "The Song of the Living God."
Thus the following:
A The Son of Man + B The Christ
B The Christ + C The Son of the Living God
Therefore, A The Son of Man = C The Son of the Living God.
Jesus' commendation of Peter's response to the initial question in verses 13 and 15 is correct in verse 16.
We as preachers and theologians preach about Peter's response in verse 16 that we forget or ignore the initial question in verse 13, "Who do men say that I am?, and second question inb verse 15, Who do you say that I am?"
Peter made the connection in verse 16, The Son of Man is "The Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Thus, Daniel 7 and Psalm 2 speak to Jesus as to His Person, His Deity and is reflected in Matthew 16.
Both Daniel and Ezekiel wrote in exile. They have forfeited the covenant blessings. God calls Ezekiel "son of man" almost as an insult - he does not call him priest or Israelite, he has lost the right to these. "Son of man" emphasizes the humility/humiliation of Ezekiel. In Daniel, son of man emphasizes the upside of this - "He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him." Jesus did not come simply to save priests or Israelites, he did not just touch the best of humanity and leave the rest of us helpless, rather his very humility became the basis for his ability to be a universal savior. "but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth." "Son of Man" captures both his humiliation and subsequent glorification perfectly.