Jesus,
the Son of Man
The Lord Jesus is known by various names in the Gospels and the New Testament generally. To some extent these names are used interchangeably, but clearly some of them are used with specific functions and in specific contexts. The phrase “the Son of Man” is such a name, the study of which “is one of the most difficult areas in all of New Testament research” (Léon-Dufour, 1980, p. 379). Donald Guthrie (1981) wrote, “Of all the titles appearing in the synoptic gospels ‘Son of man’ is both the most significant and the most enigmatic” (p. 270).
In this paper I shall explore the meaning of the term “Son of man.” Firstly, I will consider how the term is used in the Gospels as well as its Old Testament background. I will then propose a new system for classifying the various “Son of man” sayings in the Gospels, before looking at each of the three kinds of “Son of man” sayings in depth. In conclusion I will answer the question: Why did Jesus use the term “Son of man”? In answering this question I will set forth, in summary, the meaning of this challenging term.
“Son of Man” in the Gospels
“The Son of man” is the name used more frequently than any other (except “Jesus” itself) to refer to Jesus in the Gospels. The name occurs in all four Gospels, but, as Bornkamm (1960) rightly observed, “it is, however, always in Jesus’ own words; never is he named in the narration as the Son of man, nor is he so called when being addressed or acclaimed” (p. 175). It should be noted that this observation applies only to the Gospels. There are three other New Testament references to Jesus as Athe Son of man@ (Acts 7:56; Rev. 1:13; 14:14), all of which are by others about Him. Nevertheless Bornkamm’s statement is essentially true. The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels notes that the only clear exception to this in the Gospels is John 12:34, where the people quote Jesus’ words back to Him and ask to whom He is referring (Green & McKnight, 1992, p. 776). It is also significant that Jesus always refers to Himself as “the Son of man” in the third person; “it is remarkable that Jesus is not recorded as ever prefacing with the words, ‘The Son of man says’, or ‘I, the Son of man, say’, any of his authoritative pronouncements” (Higgins, 1980, p. 125). So the name “Son of man” clearly functions in a special way as Jesus’ own designation of Himself.
Of all the titles for Jesus in the Gospels this is the most important one. There are at least two reasons for this. Firstly, the frequency with which the name occurs indicates that it is the prime title for understanding Jesus’ person and work. Secondly, as Robert H. Stein (1994) has observed, since the title was only used by Jesus and was, as we have noted, His favorite self-designation, this title reveals, above all other titles, Jesus’ “messianic self-consciousness” (p. 136).
Old Testament Background
There is some Old Testament background for this title. The term is used four times in the Psalms (8:4; 80:17; 144:3; 146:3), and always means “man” in the simplest sense. For example:
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no
help. (Ps. 146:3)
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou
visitest him? (Ps. 8:4)
In Psalm 8:4, “man” and “the son of man” are used in an obvious Hebrew parallelism with identical meaning as they depict “man in his weakness and frailty in contrast to the might and character of God” (Hooker, 1967, p. 30). “The contrast between the God who offers reassurance and the people who perish like grass, is plain in Isaiah 51:12 (here too is the interchange of ‘man’ and ‘son of man’).” (Brown, 1971, p. 613) In Ezekiel the term is used dozens of times by God when He addresses His prophet, again with no great significance attached to it beyond the simple meaning of humanity. For example:
And he (God) said unto me (Ezekiel), Son of man, I send thee to the
children of Israel,... (Ezek. 2:3)
But the most important Old Testament reference to the term is found in Daniel 7:
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. 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. (Dan. 7:13-14)
Some scholars have tried to give Daniel’s “Son of man” a corporate identity, denying that it refers to a single figure. For example, Tödt (1965) asserts that the text of Daniel 7:13f “yields decisive support for the ‘communal interpretation’ of the Son of man” (p. 32). An example of this kind of interpretation is found in the writings of Kee and Young (1960): “In this passage, son of man is used as a symbolic term to designate not an individual but the faithful remnant of Israel, vindicated by God on the day of his kingdom’s triumph.” (p. 148) Manson (1948) wrote, concerning Daniel’s “Son of man”: “this phrase is not to be understood literally, but as an ideogram, if one may so describe it, meaning ‘the people of the saints of the Most High’” (p. 212). In reply, it is true that “the saints of the most High” are mentioned later in Daniel 7 in the interpretation of the vision that is given to Daniel:
But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the
kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. (Dan. 7:18)
Nevertheless this does not mean that there will be no single “Son of man” taking the kingdom at the head of the saints of God. In fact the New Testament reveals that the people of God will indeed participate in ruling the Kingdom of God along with the Lord Jesus (e.g., Rom. 8:17; Rev. 2:26-27; 3:21). Matthew 19:28 is very significant in this regard:
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have
followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of
his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel.
So the “Son of man” of Daniel 7:13 should be interpreted in the obvious literal sense as referring to a single figure.
Stein (1994) has noted that there are at least six passages in the Synoptics in which a reference to Daniel 7:13 is found: Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62; Matt. 10:23; 19:28; 25:31 (p. 138). Furthermore, all the characteristics of Daniel’s “Son of man” recur in the “Son of man” passages in the Gospels: Jesus’ pre-existence (John 3:13; 6:62), His divinity (Mark 2:10, 28), His glory (Matt. 16:27), His coming with the clouds (Matt. 24:30), and His universal and eternal kingship (Matt. 13:41; 16:28).
Classifying the “Son of Man” Sayings in
the Gospels
Donald Guthrie (1981) has written, concerning the “Son of man” sayings, “It is usual to group the sayings according to their reference (i) to the work of the Son of man on the earth, (ii) to the sufferings of the Son of man, and (iii) to the future glorification of the Son of man.” (p. 275) As Caragounis (1986) has argued, there are a number of difficulties with this system of classification, not the least of which is the fact that the Gospels contain several verses that do not clearly belong to any of the categories (e.g., Luke 6:22) (p. 145). Barrett (1967) has also noted that verses such as Mark 8:38 cut completely across the usual three-fold division of sayings (pp. 32, 79ff). Furthermore, the actual theological usefulness of such a system is debateable.
Accordingly, I would like to go in another direction altogether and propose an alternative, and, in my opinion, more useful, three-fold classification of the “Son of man” sayings in the Gospels.
I propose that Jesus used the title “Son of man” with intentional reference to Daniel 7:13. Thus the primary meaning of “Son of man” is Messiah. From our vantage point of living after the first coming of Jesus we know that Messiah was to be a Man, He was to be God, and He was to suffer, in His humanity, for the sins of His people. So, my different system would categorize the sayings according to their reference to Jesus as Messiah. The first category would include those sayings that affirm His humanity. The second includes sayings referring to Him as the Suffering Servant. The final category includes those sayings that could only refer to Jesus as God in some way.
We must recognize that any such system of classification of a matter as complex as the “Son of man” sayings will inevitably be lacking. It will also run the risk of leading either to an over-analytical or to an over-simplified approach to the evidence. Nevertheless systems of classification are helpful to reduce the evidence to manageable proportions, as long as we regard them as only approximate. We shall now consider each of these three groups of sayings.
Messiah as Man
As Loraine Boettner (1943) observed, the title “Son of man,” “whatever else it may mean, certainly was designed to call attention to the fact that He possessed real humanity” (p. 36). This would be the simplest and most obvious interpretation of the term, and Jesus’ life bore out the fact that He was a true Man. In Matthew 8:20, Jesus said, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Jesus made a reference to “the Son of man” “eating and drinking” in Matthew 11:19. Just like any other man, Jesus needed a place to live, and He ate and drank.
In his work Renewal Theology, J. Rodman Williams (1996, pp. 331-340) makes several observations toward further definition and specification of the humanity of Jesus Christ, which I will summarize:
1. Jesus is Representative Man.
In Jesus as the “Son of man” all people are represented. Jesus’ person exemplified manhood as God originally intended it to be. In Jesus, human nature is seen at its perfection, functioning as the pattern or model of genuine humanity.
2. Jesus is Real Man.
Although Jesus is fully and truly God, He is also fully and truly a Man. Jesus came “in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7) and “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:4). His humanity was genuine; it was not some new kind of humanity that God created just for Him.
3. Jesus is Total Man.
Jesus was completely human, just as much a man as any other who ever lived. In every way Jesus lived a fully human life. He was “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4, NIV), He grew and “increased in wisdom and in stature” (Luke 2:52). He participated in human activities: He was hungry (Luke 4:2) and ate (Luke 5:30); He was thirsty (John 19:28) and drank (John 4:7); He became tired (John 4:6) and slept (Mark 4:38); before His ministry, He worked for a living as a carpenter (Mark 6:3). Jesus also shared human emotions: He experienced joy (Luke 10:21), sorrow (Matt. 26:37-38), anger (Mark 3:5), grief (John 11:35), indignation (Mark 10:14), astonishment (Luke 7:9), pain and anguish (Matt. 27:46). Jesus is total Man.
4. Jesus is Perfect Man.
In His human nature Jesus was the perfection of humanhood. His whole life was lived in unfailing obedience to the two great commandments - love of God and love of neighbor. Jesus could truly say, “I do always those things that please Him” (John 8:29).
Messiah as the Suffering Servant
There are many “Son of man” sayings that relate to Jesus’ sufferings and death. It was immediately following Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus began to make predictions of His death and resurrection under the title “Son of man”:
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things,
and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be
killed, and after three days rise again. (Mark 8:31)
After this prediction Jesus again refers to the Son of man’s rising from the dead (Mark 9:9). Similar predictions are made in similar terms in Mark 9:12, 31; 10:33 (as well as in the parallel passages in the other Gospels). Two passages mention the approaching betrayal of Jesus by Judas (Mark 14:21, 41), the former expressing woe to the betrayer. In Matthew 12:40, Jesus compared “the Son of man” to Jonah, in that He would be three days and nights in the earth before His resurrection.
The significance of Jesus’ death is clearly stated in Mark 10:45:
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many.
The mission of the “Son of man” was to save men:
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.
(Luke 9:56; cf. Matt. 18:11; Luke 19:10)
Jesus came to redeem men from their sins through His vicarious death on the cross:
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the
Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have eternal life. (John 3:14-15)
In His role as Suffering-Servant, Jesus came as the Mediator between God and men. He is the only Link between God and men:
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. (John 1:51)
By virtue of His death on the cross, the “Son of man” gives eternal life to all who believe and receive Him:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat
the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him
up at the last day. (John 6:53-54; cf. John 6:27)
Messiah as God
Under this general classification I propose including statements that relate to Jesus’ divine attributes, to His inherent authority, to His glory, and to His eternal kingdom.
There are several occasions when Jesus uses the term “Son of man” when referring to His divine attributes. For example, the Gospel of John contains two profound affirmations of Jesus’ pre-existence:
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,
even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13)
It should be noted that there has been debate about whether these words were the direct words of Jesus Himself, or the words of the writer of the Gospel, at a later time, about Jesus. But the fact that the title “Son of man” is only ever used by Jesus to refer to Himself in the Gospels should settle the question!
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (John
6:62)
Because He was God, Jesus, “the Son of man,” possessed inherent authority to forgive sins,
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive
sins,... (Matt. 9:6 cf. Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24)
to judge men,
And (the Father) hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man. (John 5:27; cf. Matt. 16:27; 19:28)
and He was the Lord of the Sabbath:
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. (Matt. 12:8; cf. Mark
2:28; Luke 6:5)
Jesus used the term when He spoke of His coming glorification:
And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man
should be glorified. (John 12:23)
There are also many “Son of man” references to Jesus’ return, in glory, to judge the earth and establish His kingdom:
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (Mark 14:62; cf. Matt.
13:41; 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 25:13; 31; Luke 18:8; 21:36)
Why Did Jesus Use the Term “Son of Man”?
It appears from the above that Jesus consciously used the term “Son of man” as a direct Messianic self-designation. But, if He wanted to call Himself the Messiah, why didn’t He just go ahead and do it? The reason is simple. The Jews of Jesus’ day interpreted the role of the Messiah in primarily political terms; they looked for a Messiah who would come and destroy their enemies and exalt Israel to be the head of the nations. Jesus had not come to do that at this time. So, while He privately acknowledged to His inner circle of disciples that He was, in fact, the Messiah, yet He warned against the public declaration of that fact to the multitudes (Mark 8:27-30).
So, as Stein (1994) postulates, “one reason he chose this self-designation rather than another such as ‘Christ’ was the ambiguity surrounding the term” (p. 150). To have called Himself the “Christ” in public would have had political consequences, which Jesus clearly sought to distance Himself from. And although it is easy for us to directly relate the “Son of man” of Daniel 7:13 to Jesus, the Messiah, this was not so easily done in Jesus’ day as there was no clearly established “Son of Man Messianic Doctrine” at that time. Thus when Jesus called Himself the “Son of man” He was, in effect, calling Himself Messiah without anyone realizing it.
This would also explain why the term “Son of man” is not used by the New Testament writers after Jesus’ exaltation (with only a couple of exceptions as already noted): it simply didn’t need to be used. There was no longer the need for obscurity. Jesus was now directly called the “Christ.”
Conclusion
We have seen that, by the use of the term “Son of man” Jesus fundamentally identified Himself as the Messiah of Daniel 7:13. In that identification He affirmed three things. He affirmed that He was genuinely man, He affirmed that He was God, and He affirmed the purpose of His coming: to die for His people. If He had simply called Himself “Messiah” His mission would have been interpreted in political terms by the Jews and also by the Romans, who would not have taken kindly to another “king” establishing Himself in their midst. So Jesus chose the term “Son of man” deliberately for its obscurity.
Nevertheless to Him it was a clear Messianic designation. After Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension, however, the term is rarely used again, and the clear designation for Jesus is the term “Christ.” Jesus is the Messiah who has come once to bear the sins of His people, and He will return again with the clouds of glory to judge the world, and to establish His kingdom and reign in righteousness on this earth.
References
Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1967.
Boettner, Loraine. The Person of Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1943.
Bornkamm, Günther. Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960.
Brown, Colin, gen. ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971.
Caragounis, Chrys C. The Son of Man. Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr, 1986.
Green, Joel B. and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981.
Higgins, A. J. B. The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Hooker, Morna D. The Son of Man in Mark. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967.
Kee, Howard Clark, and Franklin W. Young. The Living World of the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1960.
Léon-Dufour, Xavier. Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Terrence Prendergast. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980.
Manson, T. W. The Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.
Stein, Robert H. The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.
Tödt, Heinz Eduard. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965.
Williams, J. Rodman. Renewal Theology. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
