This represents the teaching in Marcan tradition as to the Son of
Man, but Paul also accepted the view that Jesus was the Son of David,
though he seems to have eliminated the purely national character of the
expected restoration of the kingdom of the Jews under a Davidic king.

The only complete evidence as to the exact form of the expectation
which played a part in the teaching of Paul, and presumably in that of
the Church of Antioch as a whole, is the invaluable description given
in the Epistles[10] of the sequence of events to which Paul looked
forward. According to this he expected that Jesus would come on the
clouds of heaven; Christians who had died would be raised up, and the
rest would be changed, so that they would no longer consist of flesh
and blood, but of spirit. But, just as in 4 Ezra, the reign of the
Messiah is limited; a time will come when he will deliver up his
dominion to God. Then comes "the End," and Paul takes the picture no
further. Is it too much to suppose that, like 4 Ezra, he thought that
at the End the whole of the present order would cease, and that after
it would come the general resurrection and judgement, to which he
frequently alludes, followed by the life of the Age to Come? In any
case the idea of the limited reign of the Messiah, and the increased
{68} emphasis on the descent of Jesus from David, are points of contact
with 4 Ezra, and thus make it increasingly possible that Paul thought
that the resurrection of Christians to life would be separate from the
final resurrection of all to judgement.

This original Christian teaching was essentially Jewish, but much of
the phraseology in which it would have been expressed by Jews must have
been unintelligible to Greek ears. It therefore soon either
disappeared or was transformed. The Kingdom of God, for instance, is
as rarely mentioned in the Pauline epistles as it is frequent in the
earliest part of the gospels. The word "Christ," translating the
Hebrew adjective "anointed," was entirely unintelligible to Greek ears,
and became a proper name. "Son of Man" or "Man" would have been even
more unintelligible; Paul never used "Son of Man," and it is doubtful
whether he uses the word "Man" in the technical apocalyptic sense. But
though the words were unintelligible the ideas had not disappeared.
The functions attributed to the Son of Man in the gospels still remain
attributed to Jesus in the Pauline epistles, though they are scarcel