Son of David, Son of Man

Yesterday morning I was reading through Luke 18 when a few verses caused me to stop and think. Here are the verses - Luke 18:35-38 NIV:

[35] "As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. [36] When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. [37] They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” [38] He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

What caused me to stop was the fact that the Blind man was using a purely Messianic and kingly title for Jesus. Jesus had time and time again chosen to not specifically say He was the Son of David, but rather the Son of Man. In fact, later in the Gospel, after his triumphal entry in Jerusalem when the title was used freely by the people, He specifically addresses this title as follows - Luke 20:41-44 NIV: "Then Jesus said to them, “Why is it said that the Messiah is the son of David? [42] David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand [43] until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” ’ [44] David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”

The Baker's Evangelical Bible Dictionary has the following entry for "Son of David":

"Son of David. We can trace two lines of interpretation regarding the Son of David (Gk. hyios Dauid) in the Old Testament, one that draws attention to a direct successor during the united monarchy (2 Sam 7:12-16), and the other that applies the earlier promises to the coming of a future individual (Isa 9:6-7). Both are crucial to understanding the title for Jesus in the New Testament."

"Mention of the Son of David begins in the Old Testament with the oracle the prophet Nathan delivers to David (2 Sam 7:12-16). God promises David offspring to succeed him. God "will be his father, " and David's house and kingdom will be established forever. Numerous psalms highlight the same excitement over the continuation of the Davidic line (89:3-4; 110; 132). Even after the collapse of the united monarchy, the line of David remained significant for describing a future leader for the covenant people. Isaiah, for example, looks to the future for a child to be born who will reign on David's throne (9:6-7; cf. 55:3-4; Jer 23:5; Eze 34:2."

Baker's has this entry about "Son of Man":

"Son of Man. The term "Son of Man" occurs sixty-nine times in the Synoptic Gospels, thirteen times in John, and once in Acts. All but three occurences come from the lips of Jesus. In John 12:34, the crowd, equating the Son of Man with eternal Messiah, was puzzled at Jesus' prediction that he would be "lifted up" and inquired about the idenity of the Son of Man. The dying martyr Stephen said he saw "the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56). Jesus frequently refers to the Son of Man in the third person, causing some to assume he was not speaking of himself. Nevertheless the term seems to be not only a self-designation, but Jesus' favorite one."

And finally Baker's has this to say in summary of the terms and the way Jesus addressed His role:

"Jesus was in constant danger of being forced into limited or illegitimate messianic role (John 6:15). In response to Peter's confession (Mark 8:29-31) he accepted the title "Messiah, " equated it with Son of Man, and linked his work with that of the Suffering Servant. In the Judaism of Jesus' day "Messiah" was frequently understood as a political-military leader whose primary concern was for the welfare of Israel. Jesus' usage seems to be an extension of the portrayal of the Son of Man in Daniel and the intertestamental literature. With the term Jesus dissociated his nature and mission from purely earthly, nationalistic notions. He is a transcendent, preexistent person whose mission is primarily a spiritual one that originates in heaven and whose concern is with all peoples, nations, and languages."

It appears to me that there was an underlying belief among the people and the countryside that Jesus was the Messiah. This term specifically, relates to the expected Kingly role that the Messiah would fulfill and as prophesied by Nathan, and several psalms. Jesus, on the other hand, chose a term that more closely identified Him as a man who served all men. As I read this I immediately thought of Paul's letter to the Philippians 2:6-8 NIV:

[6] "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; [7] rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. [8] And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death---even death on a cross!"

Personally, I find this a very interesting scenario, as we have Jesus, clearly the Messiah, the anointed one the very Son of God, essentially refusing to let others title Him. Titles are so defining, and although they were all true, they also carry with them a set of expectations of behavior and role fulfillment. Jesus was so much more than what the Israelites were looking for in a Messiah, and I think that as such He knew that title would be defining and limiting. He was being sent to the chosen people, but also to all men. Being seen as just the Messiah of the Jews, would have made His sacrifice unacceptable to those who were not Jewish. Instead, Jesus embraced a lowly designation, "Son of Man" choosing instead to be identified with any and all men. He specifically chose the humble title and servant mentality it brings.

In our own lives and specifically within the church, we are always wanting to know titles, roles, etc. They are important for the understanding of our roles and responsibilities, and as such helpful. However, we must be careful to embrace only those that the Lord calls us, as otherwise we are pursuing pride and vanity. We want to have the same mindset as Christ (Phil 2:5) and embrace humility, service and love for each other. It is possible a to operate as a prophet without being titled a prophet, the same is true for any title or role. It is especially important that we do not allow others to assign us titles that are not inline with how the Lord sees us, and probably good to just use the lowest term, the simplest designation. I have been to several conferences where the introduction of the individual is effusive and lengthy, I have also seen those that refer to themselves in puffed up and inaccurate ways. It is sad to see the church giving in to the worldly ideals of titles and roles and such. It is clearly good to honor those in leadership and with authority, but it is also dangerous to allow such accolades to be the source from which we start to form our own opinion of ourselves. Oh that we would take Jesus example to heart and choose instead to just be a 'son of man'.