The son of man

One claim that Jesus makes about himself across all four gospels is the Son of Man claim and given the prominence of its usage, it warrants investigation and internal critique. Given how Muslims claim that Jesus was a Muslim solely on the basis that he submitted his will to God, we must then ask can someone be a Muslim and also view themselves as this so-called Son of Man? The next logical question is what does this title signify within the context of how Jesus uses it and can a Muslims use it for themselves without compromising their own religion?

Who is Daniel´s Son of Man?

Daniel describes his vision in chapter 7 as follows:

"13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

According to Daniel he witnesses a singular figure (“one like the Son of Man”) who approaches God who is referred to here as the Ancient of Days. He then tells us that this singular figure is not just given the authority to rule over an everlasting kingdom but that all people of all nations are serving him. The Hebrew word for serving here is latreuo and it denotes the highest form of service which in the Old Testament is only given to God. If this Son of Man figure is being served in this way according to Daniel then he must also be divine otherwise God who witnesses this worship of another before him would have refuted it instead of affirming it and bestowing upon him an everlasting kingdom? Another point that is worth noting is that this one like the Son of Man is seen riding the clouds of heaven which according to the Old Testament is something that only Yahweh does (Psalm 68:4). For a more in-depth analysis of this passage check ‘The Trinity and the covenant of redemption’ by J.V. Fesko pg. 262 – 264. With us having established the nature of this title being a divine title lets now turn to Jesus and his usage of the designation.

The Jewish perspective

One objection that Muslims have of this title is that Jews interpret this figure as a collective given the interpretation that the angel gives in the following verses and therefore Jesus didn´t mean it in this way. While this objection is in part true the issue is that there were historically speaking Jews even before the time of Jesus that viewed this title as singular[1]. This would mean that Daniel 7 can be viewed as referring to a single messianic figure since scholars agree that Jesus viewed it in this way plus this interpretation is not just unique to him with many before him viewing it in the same way as previously established.

Jesus as the Son of Man!

Since this title is used of Jesus 94 times in the New Testament which I encourage critics to read closely for themselves and look to the critical sources I´ve already provided on the subject  I am going to focus on one example found in Mark 14:62 (also in Matthew 26:64). In Mark 14:62 Jesus says: “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” What´s interesting about this verse is that it is Jesus´s answer on trial before the high priests to which they respond by tearing their garments to demonstrate how blasphemous the response Jesus gave is. The next question would be why was his answer so blasphemous? The answer would lie in the parts that I have highlighted with being seated at the right hand of the power symbolizing a special place of authority that makes one on par with God himself when it comes to divine lordship and kingship[2]. Coming in the clouds of heaven as we established in the previous section is an allusion to the glory and majesty of the Lord of Hosts himself as found in Psalm 68:4. With these things in mind it´s no wonder why the high priests reacted in the way they did since Jesus quite boldly professed before them that he shares the same divine lordship and kingship that God does thus making him equal with him in his authority and glory.

What do critical scholars say?

This designation still divides scholars today but there are a few points of common ground that most scholars agree with. Now before we look at this it should be pointed out and encouraged that Muslims be consistent with the evidence/sources that they rely on since many of the scholars they rely on for their polemics i.e., Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, N.T. Wright also makes claims about the historical Jesus that compromise the historicity of the Quran. One such example would be their affirmation that the crucifixion of Jesus was certainly a historical event contrary to what the Quran says in Surah Al-Nisa Ayat 157[3]. If Muslims are sincere then they should not cherry-pick their arguments for example if they cite Ehrman for proof that textual variants exist amongst New Testament manuscripts then they should also be willing to accept his claims that the historical Jesus was crucified and that Jesus spoke of a future eschatological cosmic Judge other than God that would come at the end of times to judge the living and the dead!

 Now to the topic at hand and what critical scholars believe Jesus to have meant by this designation. Since most scholars agree that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew then there is much agreement that he was citing Daniel 7:13 – 15 and was interpreting this: “one like the Son of Man” as a single messianic figure instead of representing the children of Israel as Jews generally hold to. This can be seen in Greek critical commentaries of Matthew that unanimously agree that whenever Jesus uses this title he is citing Daniel 7 but interpreting the figure in this vision as a singular figure and not a collective[4].

The consensus that scholars have come to is that this designation is used in an eschatological sense to denote a future cosmic judge other than God that will come in the glory of God to judge the living and dead as part of God´s final judgment for the entire world. Since scholars agree that Jesus used this term, and many agree that he used it self-referentially, can someone view themselves as the final cosmic judge of the world and still be a Muslim?[5]

Conclusion

I strongly encourage any Muslim reading this to really reflect on the things that have been said and check what critical scholars and commentators have said about these issues and not read the New Testament from the perspective of the Quran or Tawheed since most critical scholars agree that the four gospel authors all believed Jesus was God incarnate and wrote with this perspective in mind. The authors of these texts were not Muslims, and we must factor that into our reading of their works instead of forcing a Muslim understanding into the text. That´s why context is important and why we shouldn´t read verses in isolation to try and force our theology but rather understand how the author understood what he was writing.

If I read Surah 9 Ayat 5 of the Quran I could quite easily say that Muhammad commanded that all Christians be slaughtered to which a Muslim would say that that interpretation is not right since we can´t just read it literally but also must check the tafsir to understand the context better. The same grace that you want us to show the Quran you must also show the Bible otherwise it´s just a double standard so check what the critical commentaries have said on these issues since their approach is an in-dept critical historical and contextual analysis! Since Jesus viewed himself as a divine future cosmic judge that will be the final judge of the whole world can he also be a Muslim if he viewed himself as this? Take time to reflect on everything that was dealt with here and then come to your own conclusion granted you are being honest with both yourself and the evidence!

---------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Check Peter Schäfer´s work Two Gods in heaven where he goes through Jewish apocryphal texts which came hundreds of years before Jesus such as the book of Enoch and 2nd Esdras to demonstrate that not all Jews had a unitary view God with some believing that God had a divine accomplice to assist him in his divine plan and that the Son of Man was a manifestation of God´s divinity and glory in the form of a single figure other than himself.

[2] Check Leland Ryken, James Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III, ed. (1998). "Right, Right Hand" for a more in dept understanding of this phrase!

[3] Check Crossan, Dominic, John (1995), Jesus a revolutionary biography, pg. 145 and Ehrman, Bart (2012), Did Jesus Exist?, pg. 269 – 297 for their statements that nearly all critical scholars and historians agree that Jesus was most definitely crucified given the evidence.

[4] Check France, R.T. The Gospel of Matthew: The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007, and Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2005, for their critical internal critique of the title and its historical basis.

[5] Check Morna D Hooker´s 1967 work on the Son of Man in Mark and also look at Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making by James D. G. Dunn (Jul 29, 2003)  to see how critical scholars have interpreted the term and Jesus´s self-referential usage of the term.