Jesus is more accurately said to be the "son of God", me personally not really ever remembering him being called the son of man. That would be pretty inaccurate in my opinion. But I did like this post's topic even though I don't comment very often, I thought I'd give that 2 cents!
Why does the Father not tell him directly, you may ask? Because the object of the exercise is that we should hear what is being said. As in ch7 vv1-3 of the same book, the spoken command is really for our benefit, not for the recipient's benefit, so that we know what''s going on. It's a kind of drama.
It doesn't say the Son of Man, it says one like a son of man. Ezekiel was also called a son of man
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
14 I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.
15 Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.”
16 So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.
-Revelations 14:14-16
Lets break it down..
1. A "son of man" appears.
2. An angel appears.
3. The angel instructs the son of man to do something.
4. The son of man does as he is told.
Here's the interesting part...
1. Most Christians interpret the son of man on the cloud to be Jesus himself.
If it was Jesus, then don't Christians(especially those who believe Jesus is God) find it strange that an angel is telling Jesus what to do?
[size=-2]
Also note that immediately after, we read about a second angel instructing a third angel with a sickle to make a harvest of the "grapes" (symbolic of souls, I guess). Both the son of man and the third angel were being instructed to make a harvest.
[/size]
2. Another thing I'd like to point out, since revelations was written after Jesus walked the earth, so why didn't the writer just mention the name "Jesus Christ" instead of "son of man"?
Discuss.
edit on 30-9-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
It doesn't say the Son of Man, it says one like a son of man. Ezekiel was also called a son of man
And "son of man" simply means a human being. John saw someone who looked like a human being on the cloud.
And yes, I pointed out that Ezekiel was also called a son of man in the third post on this thread.
So, are you saying the "son of man" on the cloud was not Jesus?
OK, so God is the one authoring the "educational drama" and John just reports it.
When you watch a play likeHamlet, do you try to read a lot of meaning into the fact that characters speak aloud when they're thinking, or do you not recognise the practical reason for this (the audience needs to share their thoughts)?
I'm saying it didn't say The Son of Man, but A son of man.
Simple, because that aint Jesus. You're trying to make it look like Jesus is taking orders to make him not look like God.
However, this is not Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus would hardly need an angelic exhortation to begin the earthly harvest (Rev 14:15).
Oh please. all I'm doing is go by the text in the bible.
Secondly, there are people who teach that son of man in revelation 14:14 is Jesus.
You quote 14-16, but right here in the very first verse Jesus is standing on Mt. Zion, all this other stuff is going on at that same time. The 144k are the firstfruits, the first reaping of the harvest.
The purpose of the book is not to provide a detailed future history, but to provide encouragement to the church in time of crisis.,
