# Son of Man in Luke 6: 5 and22.



## gordon 2 (Oct 27, 2015)

Luke 6:5King James (KJV)

5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

22Luke 6:22King James (KJV)

22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.


When I read  Luke 6 my understanding of Son of man in verse 5 is that it refers to the Son of Adam. Or in other words Jesus is saying David was the lord of the Sabbath,  when he broke into the temple to feed himself and his troops and so people are Lord of the Sabbath.


When I read Luke 22 I read the same that the Son of man here means Son of Adam. Now in both cases I understand that the Son of man, is fallen man.

A good part of the reason that I understand Son of man here to mean man as " man filled with lack of understanding" (luke 6:11) is because of the pedagogy by Jesus with follows that we are not to judge sinners and Lord it over.That  Jesus Savoir is come, God is come, for exactly these and by judging them unfavorably we are "filled with lack of understanding" of what Jesus has come to do.   Man of "lack of understanding" cannot save "man of lack of understanding" if his judgement is also of the Son of man, or fallen man's judgement.

Show mercy and compassion and kindness as Jesus does seems to be the lesson. The good news is that God Himself " has brought deliverance and redemption to His people." Luke 1:68 And his people are fallen folk--all.

So the Son of man in Luke 6. What do you see and understand it signifies? I understood previous that since Jesus was addressing his apostles that he was saying don't be surprised that you will be persecuted because of your alliance with God, but rather I read it now that it means don't be surprised that sinners will sin towards you, ( despise and defame you) because that's what they are about, and that is where you need to be... as apostles and if you are IN Christ.

Chapter 6 ends.... with verse 49.  But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.


So as a sinner who is a citizen of the Kingdom, is my understanding lacking  and I travel still in my sin nature, or is it on the road with our Savior? Ideas? And being totally off base, can you yet comfort me with your fellowship?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 27, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Luke 6:5King James (KJV)
> 
> 5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
> 
> ...



I think you over thought.

The Sabbath is made for man (Mark 2).
If the Sabbath were physical, to rest the body, then, if God ordained, man could be lord of the Sabbath.  However, the Sabbath is spiritual (as in Sabbath rest; rest in the Lord, Heb. 4).  That is what Jesus is saying with his example of David.  The showbread was Holy only in that it was symbolic of God's promised provision for His people; the "promise" is the spiritual reality through which we are given eternal spiritual peace, eternal spiritual confidence, etc..  So the bread is just bread outside of what it symbolizes.

Through faith in Christ for the promises of God we receive spiritual peace which so overshadows the physical that those worries fade away (Mat. 6:24-34).


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 27, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I think you over thought.
> 
> The Sabbath is made for man (Mark 2).
> If the Sabbath were physical, to rest the body, then, if God ordained, man could be lord of the Sabbath.  However, the Sabbath is spiritual (as in Sabbath rest; rest in the Lord, Heb. 4).  That is what Jesus is saying with his example of David.  The showbread was Holy only in that it was symbolic of God's promised provision for His people; the "promise" is the spiritual reality through which we are given eternal spiritual peace, eternal spiritual confidence, etc..  So the bread is just bread outside of what it symbolizes.
> ...



????

Ok. I'm not getting you.  It is not you. But me.

 So I'll ask my question simply this time--so it don't have the pretense that I am "thinking" and "over thinking" it. ( Your the first human being to say that Gordie "over thinks"  Wish you had been one of my University Profs. Their advise was more that I did not think it through enough or I did not think at all. 

Question. Who is the Son of man in Luke 6? It is stated In verse 5 and 22.  ???


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 27, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> ????
> 
> Ok. I'm not getting you.  It is not you. But me.
> 
> ...



Sorry Gordo, I didn't really lay out the framework at all.

Vs 5 - Jesus
vs 22 - Jesus

vs 22 - The overthinking statement referred to the highlight, where you identified what you previously thought; then, IMHO, you started thinking too much and got it mixed up.

vs 5 - The remainder is my attempt to explain what I think the Sabbath is, why man can not be lord over it, and why Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath.


----------



## hobbs27 (Oct 27, 2015)

The Sabbath is just another law that is fulfilled in Christ. We find rest in Christ, He is our refuge from outside the Kingdom.

 The Son of Man is a reference back to Daniel and it is indeed always Christ in the New Testament.


Daniel 7:13–14


13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 27, 2015)

Thanks guys. I will re-read.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The Sabbath is just another law that is fulfilled in Christ. We find rest in Christ, He is our refuge from outside the Kingdom.
> 
> The Son of Man is a reference back to Daniel and it is indeed always Christ in the New Testament.
> 
> ...



Son of man here, does it not mean man. "One like the Son of man." I read one that is like the Son of man, or man, but is not only or is not man.???

In Luke 6:5 if Son of man is Jesus or means the Savoir, the Messiah, Jesus is saying to the Pharisees " I am the Messiah"? And it is for the Messiah to decide what is just on the Sabbath.??? If this is the case no wonder they were perplexed or scandalized by his declaration.

Also early on in Luke 6:22, during his healing ministry Jesus is saying that he is the Messiah? Is this not contrary to Mark's gospel, where it is recorded that the people Jesus healed were told not to tell... concerning who Jesus was? 

 Further, in Luke's recording of the beatitudes Jesus tells his disciples that he is the Messiah in verse 22 with the reference to the Son of man? This is way before the  end of the gospel records when Jesus will question his disciples on who they say he is.???


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2015)

John 1:51King James Version (KJV)

51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Jesus is having a conversation with Nathanael when he says the above.  Nathanael had asked " How do you know me?" ( Jesus had pointed out Nathanael's personality, having never had met him before.) Jesus answers "I saw you." To which Nathanael responds " You are the son of God."

So when I read verses 50-51 I read Jesus saying: "Nathanael, you shall see greater things than this  that is my saying "I saw you under the fig tree and that I know you for it." 51" Nathanael you shall see heaven open and  the angels of God ascending and descending upon man! or is it upon me?


???? No? What this means then is that Nathanael shall see angels of God ascending and descending upon Jesus. Or the angels of God will attend to God and Nathanael shall see it? Yes?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 28, 2015)

The Son of Man title is one of the most complex issues in New Testament studies.

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/son-of-man_bock.pdf


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The Son of Man title is one of the most complex issues in New Testament studies.
> 
> http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/son-of-man_bock.pdf



Thanks Art. I am engaged. So far I am understanding that it was most likely not a saying to mean "I" in use at the time Jesus is said to have used it. If he did use it he was most likely the first to do so as meaning "I". But more than not it meant man and not a title when Jesus actually said it out of his lips, or had I been there I  you would of heard and understood "son of man". And not I am the Messiah.

But I continue....

The the author states that most times the term "Son of man" is used in associated with the forgiveness of sin. And since according to Jewish tradition only God can forgive sin, then Son of man must mean Messiah or God.

I do ask personally, what was Jesus' teaching on forgiveness?  In the Lord's prayer if trespass is sin then Jesus tells us to forgive sin. In Luke he says " Offer the other cheek if offended.  Not only teaching to forgive sin, but to sit with sinners as he did.

 In the beatitudes as listed in Luke might Jesus be preaching, Blessed are you who are debased or looked down opon for being sinners, for being unclean because like the poor in spirit the Kingdom is yours. But Wooh! You who slander sinners, who claim to be righteous, and cleaned--the Kingdom will be difficult for you to get to.


????

My point is that depending on what Son of man means in Luke's beatitudes what Jesus is teaching his apostles can be understood quite differently. What I might have seen, which might be incorrect, is Jesus teaching that where people are that they are thought of as lowly, poor, cursed, unclean, dishonest, ( people who are looked down "up-on" ) that is where I'm sending you. Your at the right place if you are with these people. These are the people I have come for and to bring back to the fold.


???

The more traditional meaning would be, " I'm sending you to the wolves, if they mistreat you, they did the same to the prophets and like the prophets your reward will be in heaven.  

( But the people who mistreated the prophets were not the poor, the sick and the defeated people of Isreal---they who killed them were the authorities.)


----------



## hobbs27 (Oct 28, 2015)

6 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. 2 Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

3 Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companionswere hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 5 Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

 David and his companions..I read earlier today of Aaron and his sons....So Jesus being the Lord of the Sabbath and his disciples being with him as  David and his companions, or Aaron and his sons...? Does this make any sense of your questioning?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 28, 2015)

Why didn't Jesus say "I am Lord of the Sabbath" or "the Son of God is Lord of the Sabbath?"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 28, 2015)

If the rules of the Sabbath got in the way of man doing the right thing, could the rules be overlooked?
Wasn't Jesus teaching by his words and actions that if the rules get in the way of doing the right thing then the rules should be overlooked in that particular incident? Such as harvesting food on the Sabbath or healing someone of the Sabbath.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore perhaps man is Lord of the Sabbath.

I don't know either, I'm just asking along the lines of Gordon.

If Jesus was the Lord of the Sabbath then man had no right to vary or drift from the rules of the Sabbath even to do good. Yet Jesus is telling man to drift from the rules of the Sabbath in order to do good thus making man the Lord of the Sabbath.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If the rules of the Sabbath got in the way of man doing the right thing, could the rules be overlooked?
> Wasn't Jesus teaching by his words and actions that if the rules get in the way of doing the right thing then the rules should be overlooked in that particular incident? Such as harvesting food on the Sabbath or healing someone of the Sabbath.
> 
> The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore perhaps man is Lord of the Sabbath.
> ...



Art, a point of view might be, Jesus did not come to change the law, but to perfect it. Maybe.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> 6 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. 2 Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
> 
> 3 Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companionswere hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 5 Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
> 
> David and his companions..I read earlier today of Aaron and his sons....So Jesus being the Lord of the Sabbath and his disciples being with him as  David and his companions, or Aaron and his sons...? Does this make any sense of your questioning?



Yes. It is a good point. So if I was a Pharisee I would understand that Jesus is saying two things or one of two things. I am a priest similar as  Aaron was. I am King of the Jews (politically) as David was.

But what is the link with being the Messiah, so that the Pharisees would understand it this way, and rolling wheat in you hand on the Sabbath? There  is a link between healing and the Messiah, but what is the link with working in the fields on the Sabbath?


----------



## hobbs27 (Oct 29, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Yes. It is a good point. So if I was a Pharisee I would understand that Jesus is saying two things or one of two things. I am a priest similar as  Aaron was. I am King of the Jews (politically) as David was.
> 
> But what is the link with being the Messiah, so that the Pharisees would understand it this way, and rolling wheat in you hand on the Sabbath? There  is a link between healing and the Messiah, but what is the link with working in the fields on the Sabbath?



I think, " He ate what is only lawful for priests " 
Shows Jesus as priest.


----------

