Is Only Jesus the ‘Son of Man’?

You may also like...

  • When I first read this I concluded that the questioner must be female. I checked then with the hardcopy in the Southern Cross and find it is Maria Gaertner. Now I have met a poor guy whose parents named him Allison (or perhaps it is spelt Alison) and maybe it was a reference to Ali’s son.

    So I only presume that the questioner is a woman. I hope she feels consoled that it is officially also a term which Jesus used to align himself with all mortal beings.

    1) Despite the reassurance that Christian theology acknowledges that the scriptural title ‘son of man’ can be applied to any human being, is no consolation for the half of humanity that is kept invisible by exclusive language being used in every way possible still today – especially in the Catholic Church. Who is going to argue that ‘son’ is a generic term meaning son and daughter?

    2) We can only guess at the rationale Jesus had for favouring this term but I doubt he was in the least bit concerned about what the Jewish authorities were concluding regarding anything he said or did. When the time was not right for them to ‘take him’ Jesus simply disappeared.

    3) Jesus certainly did clothe the term as described in the book of Daniel with new and enriching meaning – associating himself as Son of Man with the necessity of His suffering and sacrificial death. By identifying with humanity, the Son of Man came not to be ministered to but to minister and give his life as a ransom for ALL.

    The only twist, therefore, was probably so that patriarchal mindsets – still abounding today – would see that God’s work is to give women and men a chance to be fully and authentically female or male: a true reflection of the image of God.

Read more:
Bad luck can be good luck

AS the year draws to a close many of us will probably be thinking ahead to 2008, and praying for...