# The Human Being --- After reading Wink's book on the son of man I thought it might be useful to summarise my thoughts for future reference. After serious play such as this I tend to leak, so this will be my first honest attempt at pickling wisdom. The phrase the son of man appears 108 times within the Hebrew scriptures with 93 of these appearing in Ezekiel. In the new testament such phrases appear 87 times almost exclusively within the synoptic gospels. With a few notable exceptions including [1 John 3:2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+3%3A2&version=ESV). The phrase is actually a fairly common Jewish idiom, a pattern found elsewhere within scripture. For example the 'son of the quiver' is an arrow ([Lam 3:13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lam+3%3A13&version=ESV)), the 'son of the herd' is a calf ([Gen 18:7](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen+18%3A7&version=ESV)) and the 'son of a year' is a one year old ([Gen 17:12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen+18%3A7&version=ESV)). We also find this was used to describe Joshua and Zerubbubal who are 'sons of new oil' ([Zech 4:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zech+4%3A14&version=ESV)). The phrase has three main forms depending upon translation. In aramaic it is 'bar enash', in Hebrew 'ben adam' and in Greek 'ho huios tou anthropou'. The greek has a peculiar translation of 'the son of the man' and at times this is reflected in the equivalent aramaic 'bar enasha'. Most translators drop the second definite article, but even so what is meant by this? Certainly it's use within scripture is not incidental. Jesus was so intentional in it's use, avoiding identifying (or being identified) as a Messiah. Doing so risks missing out on something important he wishes to communicate about his identity. If we follow the 'Jewish idiom' line of thought the son of man means 'man' or quite literally 'human being'. There are two key visions of the son of man, one in Ezekiel and the other in Daniel. In Ezekiel's vision[^1] he goes to great lengths to describe what he see's which includes one that 'seemed like a human form'. It would seem inconsistent with his project here to interpret the use of 'adam' here as a figure of speech (such as say in Genesis where God is 'walking' in the garden). Instead Ezekiel appears to be pointing to something that has has 'seen', namely the appearance of humanity; a transcendent image of humanity that God embodies. God in calling Ezekiel 'son of man' [ben adam] is acknowledging that Ezekiel is literally a 'chip off the old block' (imago dei), denoting the intimacy of their relationship (child / son). Ezekiel has received the name 'son of man' as a gift from God a foreshadowing of what it means to stand in the presence of God, behold him as he is and to be transformed by this image. This will later become the human project made possible through the work of Jesus. Wink rightly progresses from Ezekiel to address Feurbach's challenge. Feuerbach asserted that man 'empties himself into transcendence'. In his view man creates religion in his own image projecting himself out on the cosmos (I.e Xenophanes "if cows had gods..."). Wink tackles this by noting that Feuerbach has highlighted an important aspect of what it means to be human, namely to interpret the universe humanly. How could we do otherwise? Put differently God made me in his image to be the kind of thing that see's God through my image of him. As the saying goes astronomers perceive a universe that seems to have been made for astronomers to perceive. This is where allergy to critical realism is problematic for believers. Reality is mediated by the lens we use to examine it. When examining the 'radioactive' text of the bible we neglect to consider Hiesenberg; that the observer is always part of the field being observed. Every 'view' of Jesus is made from a particular position and we neglect this observation at our own peril. If you want an example of this principle at work, ask a group of individuals to describe what is meant by 'father'. You are likely to acquire an assortment of distinct answers. This doesn't mean that the idea of 'father' is meaningless. Rather that it's meaning inhabits the context in which it resides, or as Wittgenstein put it 'meaning is use' and philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday. We can't take something out of the system it inhabits to examine it, without killing it. There is also the problem of how to take something out of the system when we are trapped inside but let's leave the tangent here. Unlike Wink I don't believe it is necessary to discard the notion of there being an noumenal Jesus. Instead I would accept that my view of the noumenal is mediated by my sense making equipment. Many Christians are (rightly) troubled by the idea of my perceptions of God being a projection. Yet we should remind ourselves that none have, or can see God[^2]. All visions are mediated through the limitations of Human sense making. To put this perhaps in a more palatable fashion for believers; God is beyond understanding. So perhaps then what it means to be human then is to perceive God and be transformed by our perceptions into what it really means to be Human. This I believe is the power of Ezekiel's vision. God wishes to transform the human being through revelation of himself. What then of Daniel? The book of Daniel is a narrative of how God deals with the bestial nature of empire replacing the authority of the old kingdom with the one in likeness of a human being ['Kebar Enosh']. This human being is presented to the 'Ancient of Days' and given everlasting dominion and power. Traditionally this version of the idiom has been considered a simile rather than a title, but Wink has the imagination to consider the alternative. If he is right, this vision has the added dimension of being the invitation to the Human being to realise the potential of the imago dei, and the fulfilment of Ezekiel's vision. Unlike Wink I don't feel it necessary to ignore links drawn by early Christians between the one in 'likeness of a son of man' and Jesus. If anything a view of this as title rather than simile would seem to strengthen such a viewpoint. I would be of the opinion that this reveals that Jesus is the archetypal human being. He literally ascends in the gospels into the realm of archetype to become the pattern and consummation of what it means to be Human. Ezekiel's vision reveals that God wishes to be seen and incarnate in the minds of man and by so doing transform the human being. In Daniel this is now matched by the Human longing to draw near to God to realize the imago dei, something that would be made possible through the life of Jesus. In summary Ezekiel represents God coming closer to humanity whilst Daniel represents humanities response in approaching God for transformation. Whilst we can hardly consider such an exploration the 'enigma solved'; for I suspect there are far more beautiful layers of complexity within the imagery to unpack. What we might conclude from all this is that God wishes to reveal himself to us, and in so doing will foster a desire in us to draw near to him and realise the potential of the imago dei. This pattern is persistent throughout scripture and is only made possible through the work of the son of man. [^1]: [Ezekiel 1:26-2:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1%3A26-2%3A1&version=ESV) [^2]: [Exodus 33:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+33%3A20&version=ESV), [1 John 4:12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+4%3A12&version=ESV).