Add/remove tags to this thread

Topic: The Son of Man

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Status: Offline
Posts: 772

The Son of Man


David Hill 5 Aug 2002 The Son of Man

And what if you see the Son of Man ascend up to heaven where he was before...

Thesis : Y'shua was taken up to heaven and back through time to further prepare him for his ministry and future rule.

Before you scoff at this and write it off, remember his words to Apostles ("you of little faith"), and reflect upon the verse above. The Son of Man, as Theologians will tell you, is referring to his Humanity. With this in mind, you should also check out John 3 where the Son of Man was on the earth and in heaven both at the same time, which, again, is not referring to his Divinity, but his humanity. Then read this post with open mind.

Point 1

I myself would like to return back and experience some of the great events - to live through them. This, I believe, would also be true of the Savior. Would God deny this privilege to his son? In fact, IF the angels, to some extent, were witnesses to the creation, and since Jesus - as the Son of Man - is greater then the angels, then isn't it a prerequisite that he MUST have been taken back to witness the creation itself, including the creation of the angels, before the foundation of the world? This is more so true when we realize that he was to die to redeem that same creation. Note that he never claimed to have had visions, yet his detailed descriptions of the past and future are more intricate then Daniel's or John's, as if he had personally lived through them as we will see below.

Point 2

This aspect is not necessarily fulfilled by the Godhead in Jesus. This is simply seen in the fact that, as God, he needed no perfecting, but as man "he was perfected" in the things he suffered, or experienced. This applies to his knowledge as well. Though, not denying his omniscience as God, his humanity was limited in knowledge (i.e. he didn't know the woman who touched his cloak, the name of legion, when the Son of man returned, and he "grew in wisdom" etc), and to be like us in all things his knowledge would grow through experience. So, when you consider that he "spoke as one having authority" and "he knew what was in the heart of man" and "no man ever spoke like this man" and "he does all things well" etc, then it presupposes a knowledge (including knowledge of himself) gained over a long period of time - as if he had been alive forever as a man.

Point 3

He is redeemer as Son of Man. The previous propositions lead into this one. According to Peters :

This bestowal of the kingdom to the Son of Man by the Father, is clearly and explicitly taught in the covenant. Hence in agreement with it, we have the language of Dan 7:13,14;Is 49; Luke 22:29 and 1:32, etc. The divine sovereignty insures it to him...This giving of the Kingdom by the Father to the Son of Man shows what has already been observed, that this kingdom is something very different from the general divine sovereignty exercised by God. Various reasons are assigned by theologians for the use of this phrase "The son of man", a favorite with Jesus, such as its reference to the incarnation, to his relationship with man, to his being the predicted man, to his special peculiarity of personality...It is the peculiar, distinctive, predicated name of messiah given to him in virtue of his covenanted relationship to the kingdom. This is clearly the invariable linking of the name with the reception of the kingdom by Jesus himself, as e.g. Mt 25:31-34;Matt 16:27,28 etc...It may be well to add that Daniel, in the passage designated, does not speak of humiliation, but of exaltation, and with the period of Christ's highest glory the title is associated as various scriptures testify...its meaning reaches far beyond the present into the future, indicating the future conjoining and manifestation of the covenanted Son of Man and his kingdom. These two are inseparable, and the one suggests the confine the name to His first advent or to this dispensation is to limit it within unauthorized bounds, for Jesus repeatedly shows that this name stands allied with and most intimately related to, his final advent and the revelation of his kingdom." George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, Vol 1, pages 565-67 and 577.

I might add, as we will see, that Y'shua Himself also links this name to the past and which cannot, as such, be referring to his Deity, but to his humanity. This alone leads to the next proposition.

Point 4

The so-called Pre-Incarnate Epiphanies of Jesus the Christ recorded in the Old Test. are, in reality, Post Incarnate appearances of the Son of Man, taken back through time by the Spirit. The Jews believed in the pre-existence of the Messiah, to some extent and in order for The Son of Man to exhibit this aspect of his person, it would be necessary for him to go back in time. Hence Edersheim (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Longmans, Green and Co., Ny 1896, Vol 1, pg 172-5) says:

"But the rendering of psalm lxxii. 5,7; psalm cx.3; and especially Isaiah ix., carries us much further. They convey the idea, that the existence of this messiah was regarded as premundane (before the moon, before the morning star), and eternal, and his person and dignity as superior to that of men and angels: 'The Angel of the Great Council,' probably 'The Angel of the Face' - a view fully confirmed by the rendering of the targum (three if not four, different renderings of the targum on Is. ix.6 are possible. But the minimum conveyed to my mind implies the premundane existence, the eternal continuance, and the superhuman dignity of the Messiah.)...But even in strictly Rabbinic documents, the premundane, if not the eternal existence of the Messiah appears as matter of common belief. Such is the view as expressed in the Targum on Is. ix.6, and in that on Micah v.2. But the Midrash on Prov. viii.9 expressly mentions the messiah among the seven things created before the world. The passage is the more important, as it throws light on quite a series of others, in which the name of the messiah is said to have been created before the world...In the talmud it is not only implied, that the messiah may already be among the living, but a strange story is related, acording to which he had been carried away by a storm...'before the first oppressor [pharoh] was born, the final deliverer [messiah, the son of david] was already born'! In another passage the messiah is expressly identified with Anani [he who comes in the clouds of heaven], and therefore represented as pre-existent long before his actual manifestation."

You will see that the view that I present here thus perfectly harmonizes the Jewish and Christian views (both originally obtained from the Inspired texts by sages like Simeon and Gamiliel etc) of the Son of Man. And now, with these four propositions in mind, we can look at the Scriptural evidence that supports all this. These can be presented under several sub titles: The Earth, Heaven, Satan's Kingdom, Past Events, Appearances, Time, Miracles, Scriptures and Logic. Keep in mind that all these deal with the Son of Man and his personal experiences (John 3:31-32, 8:38).


If I have told you earthly things and you don't believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things...

This would be considered an arrogant statement coming from anyone other then him; for we know that what he tells us is true and factual.

Now, however, what most people miss is the fact that Jesus is here claiming factual, professional, experiential knowledge of earthly things. Even Solomon, who was given wisdom (or more probably, the ability to discern wisely), had to exercise that ability by in depth study and experience (proven by the opening premise of Ec. 1:13).

Long before anyone else understood it, Solomon gave us, in poetic language, a detailed scientific thesis on the precipitation cycle. He gained this knowledge by study and observation.

So also did Enoch learn all the preflood knowledge of the sciences, by practical study and application in the same, and, apparently, he mastered them all as the great pyramid proves.

Hence, this would also be true of Y'shua Himself. And this is necessarily the case as his own statement appeals to. His earthly knowledge was gained by personal experience and study as the Son of Man. For instance, how can he talk about the poor in spirit unless he has been oppressed? Or those that mourn, unless he has (Matt 5-7)? In the same way the earthly subjects that he talks about are gained from personal experience.

A casual reading of the gospels shows the incredible variety of subjects our Lord touches upon: Animals - moths, fowls, wolves, foxes, rooster, sparrow etc; The Elements - light, water, rust, salt etc; Human society - widows, weddings, father/son, brothers, evildoers, enemies, thieves, childbirth, children, judges, kings, war etc; Possessions - fields, lamps, cloths, householder, land etc; Plants - flowers, grass, grapes, figs, trees, wheat, mustard seed, corn etc; Body - eye, finger, stature, hair etc; Weather - sun, rain, clouds, wind, drought, seasons, meteorology etc; Occupations - construction, textiles, baker, milling, fishing, wine making, physician etc.

Now, all of these, to some extent, were common to most people, and thus not conclusive proof of my theory. But as I proceed, keep in mind that he would take these everyday subjects and shed a very original light on them (the very hairs of our heads are numbered), which in itself indicates a much deeper knowledge of each subject then otherwise known by normal men. Now, to further support what I have said so far, I want to focus on some things that he talked about that confirms this.

First of all is this: Y'shua talked a lot about the master/servant relationship, more so then the average individual would. In fact, he talked about this as one who had servants - lots of them (see Matt 6:24, 13:27, 18:27, Luke 16:13, 17:7, 19:3, John 8:34, 13:6 etc). And, I might add, that this goes along with another subject that he had a lot to say about and that is finances (accounting, investing, credit, banking, merchants, coinage, silver, depression, inheritance, mammon etc).

In fact, it may be that he talked more about this then any other subject except the Kingdom of Heaven. And it seems like these three are inseparable and in fact, support my contention, for IF he was taken to heaven before his ministry began for an indefinite amount of time, and if he did go into the past also for an unknown length of time, this explaines all of His knowledge especially these last two. In heaven He would have had thousands of servants.

These subjects that he talks about, I feel, were not gained solely from books or observation, but by practical experience.

Another subject he talked a lot about is the agricultural profession - plowing, sowing,growth of crop, reaping, burning the chaff, storage into barns etc. From start to finish he talks about this as if from personal, indepth experience. When was he a farmer? When did he "put his hand to the plow" (and not look back, for if he did, the furrows would not be straight)? When did one of his enemies sow tares in one of his fields? He speaks as one who has experienced these things.

Note especially the parable of the Sower. Our Lord says that, "He who sows the good seed is the son of man." (Matt 13:37) and that the field is the world (cosmos), and ask yourself, when did he Himself sow the good seed in the world? This is not the same as sending the servants (Apostles) to sow in the world. He was only sent to Israel during his ministry after his ordination as their King (where he may have went before then is open to conjecture). As well, if as I suspect, the parallel passage in Mark 4 tells us of the parable of the ear of corn; then the seed (Mt 13:19) is referring to the gospel of the kingdom being preached from the beginning (the blade-antediluvian stewardship, the ear- the Israeli stewardship, the full corn- the chrisitan stewardship, the harvest-the tribulation) by the messiah himself, throughout the world!

Note that Paul verifies the previous preaching of the gospel (Rom 10:18 see also Rev 14:6 etc), and this is also implied in Matt 13:35 when compared with the Old Test. passage referenced (Ps 78), which states that these mysteries of the kingdom were heard and known "of old" or "from the foundation of the earth", but that they, being "dark sayings" were still a mystery hidden.

We know that it was God who "preached" to Moses concerning the kingdom, which we also know was Y'shua himself. And this is tied into another parallel concept, which a comparison of these two passages will shall, for, from (apo) the foundation of the world (Matt 13:35, 25:34, Lk 11:50, Heb 4:3, Rev 13:8 and 17:8) is referring to the begining of the creation itself, or the beginnings of time (Strong's # 6924 Qedem - the first time, in the O.T., and #1597 Ek Palai - long ago, in the N.T., where Ek denotes origins and Palai is the root for the word Paleontology).

This alone strongly implies that Yehshuwah, the Speaker of the Parables (note this implication in the personal pronoun in ps 78), began preaching from the beginning of time. However, in John 17:24 (see also Eph 1:4 and 1Pet 1:20) he tells us that Abba loved him (the son of man) before (pro) the foundation of the world. This is referring to the time before time existed, also called Eternity Past by some theologians, and is refering to The Olam, or Hidden Time and strongly confirms this theory, for Abba loved Y'shua before he even created the universe.

The personal pronouns (esp. in John 15-17) prove this. All of this from his parable of the Sower. But further, he is called the Good Shepherd and gives a detailed description of the shepherds life in John 10, which implies personal experience. That sheep learn their masters voice, the attitude of a hireling (another servant) when the wild beasts attack the flock, and that the shepherd would make a fold out of stones and at night would sleep in the doorway thus becoming "the door of the fold" (see "Jesus the Jewish Theologian"). When was Jesus ever a shepherd? When did Jesus dress a vineyard? When did he go on a long journey? Yair Davidy ("The Tribes:The Israeli origins for Western Peoples") points out that the fact that Y'shua could sleep on a ship tossing in the sea, without waking up (or getting seasick) implies one who was used to this lifestyle! When was he ever a sailor or a merchant?

And yet again, in Malachi, it says of him, that "he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver" implying that he already has some experience with metallurgy (symbolism not-with-standing).

As already stated, God expects us to learn from our experiences and doesn't normally hand us a working knowledge of anything (tongues being one exception), and thus, for him to be perfected as the Son of Man, his learning must have been acquired in the same way.

As well, the more experiences and knowledge he gained - in every field - would better prepare him to be the Theocratic King, when that day does arrive. Thus, when he said, "Take my yoke upon you..." we are convinced that he knew what he was talking about because, as a carpenter, he knew how to make a yoke that would fit the oxen without injuring it.


Lets look at a very innocuous statement from Mt 6:20, "Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust does corrupt."

Now, he is saying this, not as a guess or a logical conclusion (Deut 29:5), but as a fact and that by personal observation. How does he know that rust doesn't exist in heaven unless he, as the son of man, had been there?

He talks about his Father (Mt 16:17 etc) as if he had seen him on a regular basis and that all that his father owned belonged to him (John 16:15), including the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 16:19) which he entrusted to Peter with the council that whatever he bound on earth would also be bound in heaven (Mt 18:18), where he knew, from personal experience, that God's will was always done (Luke 11:2), including that angels don't marry (Mt 22:31), and that they were like children there (Mt 19:14), and that there existed many mansions in heaven (John 14:2), and if there were not he would have told us, because he only spoke of those things which he had seen with his Father (John 8:38-42).

You really can't get any stronger proof of my theory then this (would a vision fulfill this statement? I really don't see how). Y'shua, the son of man, said that he personally saw all these things, and so he did, as the Son of Man, as the verse at the top of the first post proves (what if you see the son of man ascend up to heaven where he was before?).

As well, he talked about the Holy Spirit (John 14) as if he had personally seen and known him, way before anyone else thought of God as a trinity, yet it is already fully developed by him, as well as his father's angelic hosts (Mt 16:27 etc).

Satan's Kingdom

He has a general's wisdom of sizing up the enemy's kingdom (Mt 12:25 etc), in fact may have had a part in the first 'abdication' of Satan (Lk 10:18), and future one's (Lk 12:31, Rev 12), and he assaults the enemy kingdom with the skill of a professional soldier (Mt 8:26), and wages war against the enemy soldiers (Mt 1:24, 3:11, 5:7, Lk 4:41, 8:28 etc), who know who is is by name and rank as if his reputation had long preceded him.

He knows that some of these conquered enemy soldiers will "walk through dry places" (Lk 10:43) until they find another host, and that some of them would be interned where "their worm dies not" (Mk 9:44), and where there isn't any water to drink (Lk 16:19). How does he, the son of man, know all these things and more?

Even Paul, with all his visions of the angelic realm doesn't come close to the details here spelled out, but our savior talks about them as if he had personally experienced them, not as God, but as The Son of Man, his favorite term for himself.

Past Events

In Mt 7:24, he gives a very accurate description of the building of the pyramid by Enoch, even pointing out that it was anchored to the bedrock, which is something they didn't know in his day. Notice the flood and rain and the fact that there was another house built, which is confirmed by Josephus, made of bricks, assuredly on the plains of Shinar. It was as if he saw and perhaps participated in, the building of the pyramid itself ("Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" - remember, it was made of stone like the pyramid).

He states, as if knowing the social environment, that Sodom would have remained (Mt 11:23 also Mk 6:11); that God was the God of the living Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Mt 22:32); that Moses gave them divorcement because of their hard hearts (Mt 10:5), as if he had been standing there in the crowd that day (Deut 29:14-15!); refers to Elijah and Elias with insight that others never did (Lk 4:25); tells the apostles that many kings and prophets wanted to see the things they saw (Lk 10:24) as if having fellowshipped with the same; he tells us, as if reminiscing, to remember Lot's wife (Lk 17:28); uses the dream of Jacob to teach Nathaniel of the future glory of Messiah, as if he had laid Jacob to rest that night (Jn 1:51); compares Moses lifting up the serpent to his own lifting up (Jn 3:14) and many other events of the past, however, some have special details that strengthen my theory.

He tells us that Satan was a murderer "from the beginning" as if he knew that he was the main motivating force behind Cain's murder of Able, which is only something that an eyewitness would have realized (Jn 8:44 and also states that satan was the father of "The Lie" or the strong delusion - compare 2 Thes 2:11, Rom 1, Jn 8, 10:34 and Ps 82 indicating that Cain is the Lie).

Note also that the main point of his question to the leaders of Israel (Mt 22:42) was not specifically his Deity, but his Pre-Existence, for David saw the Son of Man and heard Abba talking to him.

He confirms the Jewish Tradition that Zechariah was killed between the altar and the temple (Mt 23:35 and Lk 11:47), which, again, only an eyewitness could have done at that date, as it was not a known fact, but just a legend.

He talks about life in the days of Noah, again as if he had experienced it himself, right up to the time they entered the ark. There is a curious legend in a book I skimmed through once that Noah had company in the ark with him other then his family. Someone, apparently, of importance was on the ark with him who his family couldn't see, only Noah (Mt 24:37 - remember Davidy's comments and see in Gen 7:1 where the Lord says, "come into the Ark" as if he was already in it himself).

He tells the Jews that Abraham saw "My Day" but then said that before Abraham was, I (the son of man) AM, showing, again, that he, as a man, was taken back through time, and participated in those events.

And this is emphasized by this last passage which motivated me to put this post together. He tells us that Abiathar the high priest gave bread and the sword to David and those with him. But, the Scripture states that Ahimelech his father gave these to him. What this indicates is that Ahimelech reluctantly allowed his son Abiathar to give David those things. His son became High Priest later, after this event. Y'shua did not confuse the names (Ahimelech means 'friend of the king' which he wasn't and Abiathar means 'liberal' which he was).

But note as well that Y'shua emphasises that David was not alone, contrary to Jewish legends and records (one of which says, "because of his great hunger, David ate an excessive amount of bread on that day."). We know that he didn't make a mistake, and this proves eyewitness knowledge.

In fact, might it not be possible that he himself was with David that Day? "In all their affliction he was afflicted and the Angel of His Presence saved them." (Is63:9).


There are many appearances of the Lord in the Old Test. However, there are several appearances that stand out, because of the information learned. The occasion when Jacob wrestled with the angel shows that the angel had a corporeal body (Gen 32:24). Hence would a pre-incarnate Christ have a physical body (John 4:24), if he told us that "God is a spirit" including God the Son.

As well, Jacob says that he saw God, "Face to Face", but the Lord specifically stated that no man could see him and live (Ex 33:20). But he goes on to say that Moses would see the similitude (image) of the Lord (Num 12:8 compare with Gen 1:26) and compare this with Y'shua's words (Jn 14:9) that whoever saw him had seen the Father.

Thus it is obvious to me that this is not a pre-incarnate appearance, but a post incarnate appearance of Y'shua taken back through time.

And in fact, aren't these appearances similar in nature to his post resurrection appearances to the disciples? He appeared as one already among them (Lk 24:15 and Gen 37:15) indicating that he may have dwelt among them and they would not have even known it (Heb 13:1); He appeared suddenly (Jn 20:19 and Jud 13:3); disappeared suddenly (Lk 24:31 and Jud 6:21); ascended (Acts 1:9 and Jud 13:20); ate food with them (Lk 24:42 and Gen 18:8); made physical contact (Lk 24:39 and Gen 32:24), showing, again, that he had a corporeal body; increased their faith in him (Jn 20:27 and Jos 5:14); instructed them (Jn 21:17 and Jud 6:12) etc.

"And that rock that followed them was Christ."


There are several statements that he made that are time sensitive. We have already touched some of them previously, and now I will list some more. In Mt 12:8 he said "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" and how might this be possible unless he, as the son of man, was taken back in time to witness (possibly participate in) the creation of the same?

The testimony of the Baptist was that he was "before him" , and where did John get this info from if not the epiphanies of the son of man in the old test (Compare John 1:15 with verse 18)?

He then said that "the son abides forever" indicating that before he started his ministry, God caught him up to heaven and subsequently back through time to the beginning and that he lived through many of the events there recorded.

And this then becomes the basis for his statement concerning John (21) tarrying "till I come". If, as I believe, the apostle John has tarried here for 2,000 years, it is because, as our Lord's best friend, he wanted John to be like him, who also had "tarried" here since the beginning, up until the ascension.

He wouldn't ask anyone to do something that he was not willing to do himself.

Now note in Jn 8:42 and 18:37 he indicates this very process. In chapter 8 he "proceeded forth" from God at the incarnation (exerchomai - to issue; ex denoting origin) and then came (heko - to arrive, be present) >From (apo - off or departure).

While the origins of God the Son are the same as the Son of Man (both proceeded from Abba), the second statement can not be stated of God the Son who is always with God the Father (Jn 3:13). Only the son of man could proceed from God and depart from God.

This process is echoed in chapter 18 to confirm this view and order of events from his perspective, where he was "born (incarnation) and "came into the world" (compare Jn 3:31, 6:38, and 7:27 etc).

This second account stresses the entrance into the world and the former account stresses the arrival in Jerusalem as their king at the start of his ministry.

Both of these taken together as bookends to chapter 17 prove what I am saying here. For in that chapter he states that he (the son of man - note the copious personal pronouns in that chapter which removes all reasonable doubt) was glorified with his father "before the foundation of the world.

This statement actually sheds a lot of light on the transfiguration itself. Of the trans. Peters says: Avoiding the idea of its being 'figurative' (for it was real), the scene enacted in the transfiguration is A representation of the very appearance that the Son of Man will assume when he comes in glory at his second coming in his kingdom...Another feature as introductory ought to be considered. Just previous to this...the confession had been made by Peter that Jesus was "the Christ of God"...He (2Pet 1:16-17) says: "We have not followed cunningly devised fables" (as so many now allege) "when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His Majesty."

Peters presented this view to prove the future personal advent of the son of man in glory, for the purpose of demolishing preterism. However, in the process, hasn't he also proven that this is how the son of man was glorified "with the glory that I had with you before the foundation of the world", as he tells these same disciples in this passage? If the one is true of the son of man, then, de facto, so is the other one.

He then says that Abba loved him (the son of man) "before the foundation of the world" (17:24). Compare this with his words, "I have known thee" and this is conclusive. He is not speaking as God the Son, but as The Son of Man.

This whole process is hinted at in the words of the Psalmist (45:5): "Many, O Y'hava my God, are your wonderful works which you have done, and your thoughts toward us; they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee."

From the Church's perspective, the appearances of our lord in the old test. are pre-incarnate appearances of the son of God in human form.

But from his actual experience, he was born, then taken up to heaven (probably just before he would have started him ministry) where he was glorified with Abba, and then was separated from his Abba and heaven, and came into the world, being afflicted with the people of God, and finally arrived at Jerusalem and started his ministry as their King.

It is possible that Heaven exists in a perpetual state of time called "Before the foundation of the world" ("the same yesterday, today and forever") and this would be what the Olam or "Hidden period of time" is refering to, which is usually translated as eternity as in Ec 3:11 where "world" is this word Olam (compliments of Don Richardson, "Eternity in their hearts").

Thus the passage reads, "He hath made everything beautiful in his time, and he has set eternity in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God forms from the beginning to the end."

Much can be learned from Paul's writings on this. In 1 Cor 1-2; where he references Is 64 (where 'continuance' in vs 5 is this word Olam); he intimately connects this to the cross and to "The mystery of the fellowship" which mystery was known (Ps 78) from the foundation of the world (Is 64:4). In Eph. 3, he tells us that this hidden Eon (N.T equivalent of Olam) was fore-ordained and hidden in God. In Col 1 he calls this Olam, among other things, The Mystery (yet again) of "Christ in you, the hope of glory." And in 1 Tim 1 he calls Christ, "The King of Eons" where this word is used three times.

This last statement confirms that the incarnate Christ, the son of man, as the king of the ages, must have been taken back to witness and participate in the creation itself ("Let us make man in our image").

I will have more, lord willing, on this Olam in my posts "The Theoferrum Crucibulum" which will reveal exactly what these mysteries are, but for now compare Ps 45, Heb 1:8, 5:6, and Ps 110.

Note esp. in Ps 110 where the priesthood of Melchizedek, as it is applied to the son of man, is "forever" (Olam), which again supports this especially realizing that, as this priesthood is to redeem mankind, it must be referring to His Humanity!

"The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

And, in fact, it is highly possible that Y'shua Melchizedek (Book of Jasher not-with-standing which says that this was Shem). This can be supported in several ways.

That this priesthood was "of the order of Melchizedec" does not rule out that he was Melchizedec. In fact, the two words translated "after" actually strengthen this connection. For in Ps 110 the word used is AL, which means above, over, upon etc, and is of course also a title for the Almighty, and is spelled almost exactly as Olam with out the final Mem, bringing this right into my previous quote of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth.

In Hebrews, it is the word Kata which has a host of definitions, but the one that is intended would be 'of' or pertaining to. Hence, the priesthood OF Melchizedek, which again does not negate that it was Jesus. And this can be seen in the ceremony of Melchizedek with Abraham.

You will note that there was no sacrifice, but that he brought bread and wine - exactly as our Lord did at the institution of communion. There is no doubt that he thought that he was the fulfillment of this type, and very possibly because He was the Type!

Thus in Ps 110 Abba was telling him that his priesthood would not consist in continual sacrifices after the one sacrifice was committed (*), which is what Barnabus says in Hebrews concerning the same, set in opposition to the Aaronic priesthood.

As well, this priesthood is based on the Sonship of Y'shua as Barnabus also points out ("As a Son over the House") as opposed to Moses who was just a servant. Note that this household really started back in the garden, implying that the Son had the oversight from that point in time and forever. That he had 'no father or mother or beginning or end' is an accurate description, from an earthly viewpoint, of someone who had been taken back in time to before he was actually generated.

Thus Peters says: He is priest of "the everlasting covenant" and as such he not only provides the provision for its realization, but being its 'surety' he remains personally interested in the same, and secures it for us...The continuity of his priesthood is identified with the perpetuity of his own existence (Heb 7:24,25): "But this man (Jesus) because he continueth ever (Gr. remains forever) hath an unchangeable priesthood"...Even such a commentator as Moll (Lange's Com. Heb.) designates Jesus as "the promised Eternal Priestly King" and writes of him as "the bearer of an Eternal and Untransferable Priesthood."

So, I might ask, how then, could it have been transferred from Melchizedec to Y'shua? Perhaps it never was. And, perhaps this event, along with the sacrifice of his son, together make up the 'day of the son of man' that Abraham saw and rejoiced in.


All this can be emphasized by the miracles of our lord, but specifically those with no known precedence. In the feeding of the multitude, though preceded by miracles of Elijah and Elias, and the manna in the wilderness, this miracle takes it further then we can understand.

Why, without so much as blinking an eye, could Jesus, not once, but twice, immediately feed thousands of people with a couple of fishes and loaves of bread? Only because there are no hungry people in heaven, and maybe that is how its done there (i.e. "Angel's Food" Ps 78).

And how could he alone, of all the prophets, perfectly heal a man born blind (Jn 9), unless it be that there are no blind people in heaven and even that his own literal hands formed the first set of eyes.

How could he raise a man dead for four days (Jn 11), unless its because "all live unto him" "before the foundation of the world".

But to me, the greatest miracle of our lord that enforces this theory; is in fact its capstone; is his miracle of walking on the water (Mt 14). This really has no precedence to speak of, yet it can be understood from the word.

This subject, also, was in my book and I will summarize it here. The sea of glass is mentioned throughout the word (Ex 24, Job 37, Rev 4, 15, I Cor 13, Ez 1, 26) and if you compare all the scriptures you will see that the sea of glass is the floor of the throne room of heaven (note that in exodus it appears as such) and is the heavenly counterpart of our atmosphere (note in Ezekiel that he is on the earth, with the four beasts, and the sea of glass is over their heads, but still the floor on which the throne is sitting). And, this will again be the case when the NJ is once again established on the earth, with our atmosphere being level with the floor of the throne room of heaven, literally (see my post on Mt. Zion, and note that the sea of glass in Rev 15 is mingled with fire under the seventh trumpet when the vials are poured out on the earth again showing that it is the division between heaven and earth, which Paul compares to "a looking glass" or "through a glass darkly").

Thus when the son of man walked on the sea of Galilee, it was no different for him then walking on the sea of glass in heaven, which he had assuredly done many times previously.


There are other scriptures which further support and explain this theory (Rom 6:3-7, 8:29-39, 9:23, 11:34, 1Cor 2:7, 2 Cor 4:18, 9:9, Eph 1:4, 2:6-10, 3:9-21, Col 1:15-17, 2:1-5, 1Pet 1:11, Ex 23:20!, Ps 91:11 etc) for those who might want to scripturally "meditate" on all this ("How hath this man letters having never learned?").

Note especially Mic 5:2 where "come forth" means birth, but "goings forth" not only is plural, but contrary to Strongs, means Journeys not issue.

But I also wanted to say that some of our lords words indicate that he also experienced some of the future before he started his ministry (he saw Nathaniel under the fig tree, knew Lazarus was dead, that the disciples would find the colt, and the man carrying the pitcher of water, and that Peter would find the coin in the first fish he caught, how Peter would glorify him etc) and also that he continued (after his resurrection perhaps) to experience future events (that John would tarry, the revelation and possibly even the call of Paul and maybe even the call of the 144,000 - a prerequisite of being an apostle is to have seen the resurrected savior).

But I found one passage of Scripture that was cleared up for me with this theory. I have always wondered why, if "The Son of Man" is a title unique to the Messiah, this title was then given to Ezekiel. It obviusly is because, in some way, Ezekiel is a type of The Son of Man. However, I had studied this book as much as all the others and never really found any thing that set him apart from the other prophets. In fact, at first glance, Daniel would be a better candidate for this typology, because he is from the tribe of Judah, whereas Ezekiel was from the Priestly lineage. But then I figured it out as I was finishing this post.

In Ez 8, the lord takes the prophet up and brings him to Jerusalem, where he sees the woman weeping for Tammuz. This is an annual festival of that religion (including the making of the cakes and "putting the branch to their nose" - see post on the sign of Cain) which is celebrated in the month that gives it its name - Tammuz. This is the fourth month.

Now, however, Ezekiel was caught up in the Sixth Month and was taken, not only back to Jerusalem, but back to Jerusalem as it was two months previously, at which time Ezekiel interacted with the people at that time.

Thus, if this is true, then this is the only occurrence in the word (specifically) where an individual was taken back in time, thus becoming the perfect type of the Son of Man presented in this series of Posts!


If it be asked, "Why would God take Y'shua back through time? Why not have him born before the flood and then live through time?" The answer will be found in the covenanted ministry and kingdom of the Messiah.

Because of the fall, God had to take back what Satan had usurped - rule of this cosmos. So, Jesus couldn't be born until the theocracy had been established. And, because he had to die to purchase that cosmos, it would not befit him to be the King that institutes the kingdom under war time conditions (seen in David and Solomon). This required his birth after the monarchy was established.

And, as well, in order for the king to relate to the (predominantly) gentile church, it behooved him to be born and manifested at the start of the engrafting of the gentiles into the kingdom.

So, as savior and king, he has a relationship to Israel as to physical descent and to the gentiles via spiritual descent.

However, this leaves, to some extent, the antediluvian patriarchs out of the picture. So, though born "In the fullness of times", he was taken back to the beginning and lived through those years and thus becoming united with all his people - Antediluvian, Israelites and Christians.

And, he is even united to the tribulaton saints, who "sing the song of Moses and the Lamb" and ask yourself, why is it named this, unless He was with Moses when that song was written (Deut 32)?


This entire post depends upon my understanding of "The Son of Man", so to finalize this, I will include some more information from Peters followed by my comments.

Dr. Neander (Life of Christ, pp. 99,100) says respecting this phrase: "We conclude that as Christ used the one (viz., son of man) to designate his human personality, so he employed the other to point out his divine." Now, admit that it refers to "human personality" why should the meaning thus given be changed for the divine or spiritual? If such an arbitrary change is to be made, what uniformity and consonance is there is scriptural exposition?

The exact same question can be asked concerning the verse that I started this post with, "what if you see the son of man ascend up to where he was before". To consistantly interpret this phrase "the son of man" then at some point in his life, before he started his ministry, he had to have been caught up to heaven where he was glorified with the father etc. Notice that he did not say, "and what if you see the son of God ascend up to heaven where he was before" which is what he would have said if that is what he meant. "Oh ye of little faith".

Dr. Campbell (Diss. on the Gospels) remarks, that the phrase meant that the messiah "would be human, not an angelical, or any other being; for in the oriental idiom, son of man and man are equivalent."

Pretty much proves my point, hey.

The simple fact is this: The phrase "son of man," in its covenanted sense, does not fit into a spiritualistic system and hence arises the various and conflicting sennses applied to it, making it to denote more or less by way of accommodation. The Pre-mill doctrine alone gives it one determined and continuous meaning and sonsistently perserves it throughout.

And, the view here presented is the only one that continues to consistently interpret the phrase as He intended it to be understood.

There is no proper pre-existence of Jesus as "the Christ" the promised "Messiah". Fully admitting the pre-existence of the Divine, this itself does not constitute "The Christ," for it is the union of the Divine and Human in David's Son that forms "The Messiah," - the historical, covenanted Christ. The notion of a pre-existent Christ... is contradictory to covenant and prophecy, for before David was born to whom the covenant was given...and before Jesus was born as David's descendant, "The Christ" as such could not exist.

His statement here, to some extent, is correct, for he is saying the same thing that I am and that is that there is no such thing as a pre-incarnate appearance of the Messiah in the Old Testament. However, were he presented with the view here enclosed, he would see that his pre-existence, is a result of his being taken up to heaven and then back through time, making it appear that in fact he had always existed. Thus merging perfectly the Firstborn Son of the Creator and the Firstborn Son of the Creation in a perfect harmony.

He is, after all, the GodMan...

Search the Scriptures, for in them you think that you have Eternal Life; and it is they that testify of Me...


Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Members Login

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard