Son Of Man

Holman Bible Dictionary

The Old Testament With the exception of Ezekiel and Daniel, the term Son of man appears in the Old Testament as a synonym for “man,” “humankind” (  Isaiah 56:2;  Jeremiah 50:40;  Psalm 8:4;  Psalm 80:17;  Psalm 146:3;  Job 25:6 ). In the Aramaic language spoken in Palestine in Jesus' day, the expression Son of man was similarly used to mean “the man,” “a man,” or simply “someone.” The term appears in the rabbinic writings with the meaning, “a certain person.”

1. Ezekiel In Ezekiel, God uses the term 90 times to address the prophet. The exact nuance of this usage is widely debated. Is the emphasis on the humanity and frailty of the prophet? It is used, perhaps, as a title to distinguish him from other men. Or, it may reveal the prophet's sense of identity with his people. In any event, the emphasis seems to be on the humanity of the prophet, a meaning which Christians also came to attach to the term when applied to Jesus.

2. Daniel The most distinctive Old Testament use of “Son of man” is in  Daniel 7:13 . In one of his night visions, the prophet saw “one like a son of man” (NAS) come on the clouds of heaven to appear before the throne of God. He was given dominion over all peoples and an everlasting kingdom. Scholars are divided over whether the Son of man of Daniel's vision should be seen as an angel, as the Messiah, or as all of Israel. (The latter conclusion is drawn from the fact that in  Daniel 7:27 the “saints of the most High” were granted dominion over an everlasting kingdom.) Later, Jewish interpretation of   Daniel 7:13 , however, is at one in seeing the reference as messianic. This is true of the later apocalyptic writings such as Enoch and 2Esdras as well as the rabbinic writings.

The New Testament The “Son of man” sayings of Jesus fall into three distinct types.

1. Apocalyptic Sayings The largest number of Son of man sayings deal with the final times when the Son of man will descend to earth to gather the elect and to judge. The picture of the Son of man in these passages is strongly reminiscent of  Daniel 7:13 (quoted in   Matthew 24:30;  Matthew 26:64;  Mark 13:26;  Mark 14:62;  Luke 21:27;  Luke 22:69 ). The Son of man will come in glory with His angels and take His seat on His throne ( Matthew 25:31 ). His coming will be sudden and unexpected ( Matthew 10:23;  Matthew 16:28;  Matthew 24:27 ,  Matthew 24:38-39;  Matthew 24:44;  Luke 17:22-27 ). He will come as judge to condemn the unrighteous ( Matthew 13:41;  Matthew 16:27;  John 5:27 ) and to take as His own those who have faith and confess Him ( Luke 12:8;  Luke 18:8;  Luke 21:36 ). Faithful disciples are to join the Son of man in this judgment ( Matthew 19:28 ), which perhaps reflects the dual role of the Son of man and saints of the Most High found in  Daniel 7:13 ,Daniel 7:13, 7:27 . These sayings could be taken as referring to another than Jesus, but the Gospel writers unquestionably saw Jesus as referring to Himself and connected these events with His second coming.

2. Passion Sayings The second largest group of Son of man sayings are connected with the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Three times Jesus predicted that the Son of man would be rejected and killed by the priests and scribes but would rise on the third day ( Mark 8:31;  Mark 9:31;  Mark 10:33-34;  Luke 24:7 ). Just like John the Baptist, the Son of man would be treated with contempt ( Mark 9:12-13;  Matthew 17:12-13 ). He will be betrayed ( Matthew 26:24 ,Matthew 26:24, 26:45;  Luke 22:48 ). Death would be followed by victory, the resurrection from the dead ( Matthew 17:9 ).

In his own way, John highlighted this dual emphasis on the humiliation of the cross and the glory of the resurrection. The Son of man is to be “lifted up” on the cross, but this “lifting up” is in reality His exaltation, leading to His ascension to the Father ( John 3:14;  John 8:28;  John 12:34 ). As with a seed, death must first come for there to be new life, and thus Jesus' death became His hour of greatest glory ( John 12:23-4;  John 13:31 ).

Nothing in Jewish messianic expectation connected the Son of man with suffering and death. In the Old Testament, one finds that only with the Servant of  Isaiah 53:1 . That connection is clearly made in this group of Son of man sayings, and it is explicitly made in  Mark 10:45 (  Matthew 20:28 ). The Son of man, the messianic Judge of the final time, is also the Suffering Servant of God. That connection is unique to the teaching and ministry of Jesus.

3. Sayings Connected with Jesus' Ministry The third group of Son of man sayings is the most heterogeneous, but all refer to some aspect of Jesus' earthly ministry. Many could be understood in the sense of the Hebrew idiom —“a man, this man, I.” Yet, all have a deeper implication than any human I, for all point to some unique quality about Jesus' ministry. Even in these sayings, “Son of man” should be seen as a title pointing to Jesus' special role. He is the One who has authority to forgive sins ( Matthew 9:6;  Mark 2:10;  Luke 5:24 ) and to interpret the meaning of the Sabbath ( Matthew 12:8;  Mark 2:28;  Luke 6:5 ). In His preaching, He sowed the seed of God's kingdom ( Matthew 13:37 ), for He came to seek and to save the lost ( Luke 19:10 ). Blessed is the disciple who suffers for His sake ( Luke 6:22 ).

Some of these sayings reflect an incarnational emphasis. The Son of man in His earthly humiliation had no place to lay His head ( Matthew 8:20;  Luke 9:58 ). He was misunderstood and rejected ( Matthew 11:19;  Luke 7:34 ), but such personal rejection is forgivable—it is only the rejection of the work of the Spirit that is beyond forgiveness ( Matthew 12:32;  Luke 12:10 ). John's Gospel especially highlights this incarnational emphasis. The Son of man is true flesh and blood. One must accept that humanity to find true life ( John 6:53 ). The Son of man is also Son of God, the One who came from above, the Ladder which links all humanity with God ( John 1:51 ).

4. The Rest of the New Testament “Son of man” occurs only four times in the New Testament outside the Gospels. All four reflect understandings of the title already found in the Gospels. In  Acts 7:56 , Stephen beheld the ascended Son of man standing beside the throne of God to receive him. In  Revelation 1:13;  Revelation 14:14-16 , the Son of man appears as Judge. In  Hebrews 2:6 , the reference to Son of man in  Psalm 8:4 which originally applied to humanity in general is specifically applied to Jesus as the unique Son of man and representative of humanity. In the context of   Hebrews 2:1 , all the Gospel emphases on Son of man coalesce—a strong incarnational emphasis on His real flesh and blood, a vivid depiction of His representative suffering, and the note that by that suffering He acquires His glory and honor and leads many to glory.

Conclusion Why are there so few references to Son of man outside the Gospels? Perhaps it was not a familiar term in the Gentile churches to which most of the New Testament writings were addressed. In any event, the significance of the term was not lost, for the New Testament writers all attest to the profound teachings which this term embodies—the true humanity of the Word made flesh, the necessity of His suffering and death for salvation, the glory of His reign over an everlasting kingdom, and His final coming to judge the just and the unjust.

John Polhill

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

The only instance in the NT outside the Gospel records of a direct reference to Jesus as ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου occurs in the speech of Stephen before the Jewish Sanhedrin ( Acts 7:56). Assuming its genuineness, it is significant that the expression is used by a Hellenistic Jew recently converted to Christianity. Even on the assumption that the speech is largely the composition of the author of Acts, the same significance attaches to its employment here. Not only is it evidence that the gospel tradition was, in the main, correct as to its use by Jesus of Himself, but it shows how early the consciousness of the Church awoke to the claims which the designation involves. The strange hesitation of primitive Christianity in using this title proves the sturdinèss of the growth and development of independent thought within the Church of the Apostolic Age. The rage of Stephen’s audience, on hearing the words of the speaker, is accounted for only on the supposition that ‘the Son of man’ was recognized as the Jesus whom they had so recently done to death, and who now is described as occupying the transcendent position, and discharging the functions, of Messiah. The great and final synthesis-the Suffering Servant and the Eternal Judge-had received its justification in the alleged exaltation of the Crucified to the right hand of God. Now, no less than in the days of His humiliation, His sympathies were active for the despised and the suffering. It is, perhaps, too much to say that ‘He is revealed to the eyes of His first martyr, that Christians may learn that that which is begun in weakness shall be completed in eternal majesty’ (B. F. Westcott, The Speaker’s Commentary, ‘St. John and the Acts,’ London, 1880, p. 35), but St. Luke’s use of the term in this connexion shows how profoundly its implicates had affected the Christology of the primitive Church (note the word ἑστῶτα; cf. ἐκάθισεν,  Mark 16:19, and κάθου,  Psalms 110:1).

The absence of the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου from the general body of NT writings cannot, therefore, be explained as entirely due to a reverent or superstitious disinclination to use a title which Jesus had appropriated to Himself. If the details of the martyrdom of James the Just given by Hegesippus and quoted by Eusebius be accepted, we have the designation used of the glorified Jesus Messiah. On being asked concerning Jesus who was crucified, he answered in a loud voice, ‘Why do ye ask me about Jesus the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven’ (Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.)ii. 23). According to Jerome, the Gospel according to the Hebrews stated that Jesus had revealed Himself to James after His resurrection as ‘the Son of man’ (‘filius hominis’ [Vir. Ill. 2]), and we may conjecture that the expression in Hegesippus is a reminiscence of that event. It may be readily accepted that the words of James the Just are ‘of the nature of a quotation.’ It is not, however, so easy to see why the same should be said of ‘the use of the phrase by the martyr Stephen in the Acts and the martyr James the Just in Eusebius and by the angels in Luke after the Resurrection’ (E. A. Abbott, The Son of Man, Cambridge, 1910 [3317]; cf. note on [3317a]). The vision of Stephen gives a wider and deeper significance to the Messianic activities of the ascended Jesus. ‘The Son of man’ stands on the right hand of God ready to express His feelings of love and sympathy with the sons of the race to which He belongs.

There are two passages in the NT where the words ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου are found ( Revelation 1:13;  Revelation 14:14) both in descriptive accounts of the Seer’s visions. Quite obviously the references are to Jesus as the glorified Messiah (see, on the other hand, H. Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, Tübingen, 1896, p. 56), and evidently are allusions to the apocalyptic language of Daniel (7:13). According to G. Dalman, the origin of the expression is to be discovered not in  Daniel 7:13 but in 10:5f. (The Words of Jesus, Edinburgh, 1902, p. 251). The peculiar phraseology of the NT apocalyptist shows that, although he may have known and even been thinking of Jesus’ self-designation, his eschatological doctrine had its roots in the soil of Judaistic transcendentalism, moving in a plane higher than that of grammatical construction (cf. ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ, 1:15, etc.), and that we cannot equate his expression with the θεωρῶ … τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου of Stephen (see H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John 2, London, 1907, p. 15). The use of ὅμοιος as an adverb in both passages may have been due to the translation he was accustomed to use, but in any case the above conclusion is not affected (ὅμοιος υἱός = ὡς υἱός).

There seems, indeed, no reason to doubt that this designation was well known to the writers and teachers of the apostolic period in spite of non-usage. We need not stay to inquire into the ultimate origin of the idea underlying the term or whether it is to be traced to the Persian doctrine of the Primal Man (see C. Clemen, Primitive Christianity and its Non-Jewish Sources, Edinburgh, 1912, p. 150 ff.). The expression has become native to Palestinian thought and was a terminus technicus of Jewish eschatological speculation. The use of the 8th Psalm by St. Paul in  1 Corinthians 15:27 and his discussion as to the relative appearances in time of the ‘earthy’ (χοϊκός) and the ‘heavenly’ (ἐπουράνιος) man suggest his acquaintance with the term ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. The same may be said of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Jesus’ superiority in rank to the angelic beings, notwithstanding the fact that He is υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, is insisted on. The author of the Epistle to the Ephesians not only quotes this Psalm (πάντα ὑπέταζεν,  Ephesians 1:22), but does so as if its highest application is discovered in the eternal exaltation of Jesus (ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς, κτλ.) ‘the Lord,’ and in His session (καθίσας) at the right hand of God in the heavenly regions (ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις; see J. Moffatt’s translation in The Historical New Testament2, Edinburgh, 1901, p. 232; cf. the use of the Danielic visions in  2 Esdras 13:3 ff.).

Widely different reasons are given by scholars to explain the absence of the term ‘the Son of man’ in the writers of the apostolic period. All the Greek-speaking leaders of Christian thought from Ignatius and Justin Martyr to Chrysostom agree in teaching that the title has a special reference to the human nature of Jesus, the human side in His descent. So also do Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Ambrose. For them its importance and significance were mainly dogmatic and theological, less suitable for the exigencies of practical instruction and life. For whatever reason, it did not then, and it never has, become a popular designation of Jesus by the Church (see Dict. of Christ and the Gospelsii. 664a).

J. R. Willis.

Fausset's Bible Dictionary

Others are "sons of men" ( Job 25:6;  Psalms 144:3;  Psalms 146:3;  Isaiah 51:12;  Isaiah 56:2). God addresses Daniel ( Daniel 8:17) once, Ezekiel so about 80 times, to remind him of his human lowliness and frailty, as "man lower than the angels," though privileged to enjoy visions of the cherubim and of God Himself, "lest he should be exalted through the abundance of the revelations" ( 2 Corinthians 12:7). The divine Son appeared to him "as the appearance of a man above upon the throne" ( Ezekiel 1:26). As others are "sons of God," but He "the Son of God," so others are "sons of man" ( Ezekiel 2:1;  Ezekiel 2:3) but He "the Son of man" ( Matthew 16:13), being the embodied representative of humanity and the whole human race; as on the other hand He is the bodily representative of "all the fullness of the Godhead" ( Colossians 2:9). Ezekiel, as type of "the Son of man" whose manifestation he records, is appropriately designated "son of man."

The title "the Son of man" implies at once Messiah's lowliness and His exaltation in His manifestations as THE REPRESENTATIVE MAN respectively at His first and second comings; His humiliation on the one hand ( Psalms 8:4-8;  Matthew 16:13;  Matthew 20:18;  Matthew 20:28) and His exaltation on the other hand, just "because He is the Son of man":  Daniel 7:13-14, Hebrew not Βen -ish or -Αdam , son of a hero or of man generically viewed, but Βen enosh , "Son of man," frail and abject, marking the connection of His humiliation and exaltation as man ( Philippians 2:5-11;  Matthew 26:64;  John 5:27). He comes again as man to reinstate man in his original glory, never to be dispossessed of it. He is now set down on the throne of God as the Son of God. That is a throne which His saints cannot share; therefore He shall assume another throne, made "His" in order that they may sit down on it with Him ( Revelation 3:21).

The kingdom shall be "under the whole heaven," on earth ( Daniel 7:18;  Daniel 7:27); He shall reign with them as the Son of man, Head of the new creation, and Restorer of man's lost inheritance. Because as man He established His and the saints' title to the kingdom at the cost of His own blood, as man He shall judge and reign. It is fit that He who as the Son of man was judged by the world should judge the world.  Revelation 5:9-10;  Psalms 8:4-8;  Hebrews 2:6-8;  1 Corinthians 15:21-22;  1 Corinthians 15:28;  1 Corinthians 15:45;  1 Corinthians 15:47. The title "the Son of man" in the New Testament Jesus alone uses, and of Himself, except Stephen in dying, "I see the Son of man standing on the right hand of God," referring not to His humiliation on earth but to His heavenly exaltation (compare  John 12:23;  John 12:34;  John 6:62;  John 3:13;  Acts 7:56); standing to assist, plead for ( Psalms 109:31), and receive the dying martyr.

Stephen speaking "full of the Holy Spirit" repeats Jesus' prophecy before the council, foretelling His exaltation as the Son of man; only there it is "sitting on the right hand of power," because there majestic repose, here rising to His servant's help, is the thought. Stephen's assertion stirred their rage, that Jesus who had been crucified for claiming to be "the Son of God" stands at God's right hand as being "the Son of man." Another exception is John so calls Him in apocalyptic vision ( Revelation 1:13;  Revelation 14:14), corresponding to the Old Testament apocalypse ( Daniel 7:13). The Son of God in eternity became the Son of man in time, whose manhood shall be glorified with His Godhead to eternity. The two titles together declare the whole truth as to His one Person, "whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? ... Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. ... Blessed art thou, Bar-Jona" ("son of Jonah"), etc.

As truly as thou art son of Jonah I am at once "the Son of man" and "the Son of God" ( Matthew 16:28). The two are again combined in Caiaphas' question as to His being the Son of God, and His affirmative answer and further revelation, "nevertheless, besides ... ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power," etc. ( Matthew 26:63-64;  Matthew 24:30;  Matthew 25:31-32;  Mark 14:61-62). As the Son of man He was Lord of the Sabbath, "for the Sabbath was made for man" whose Representative Head He is ( Mark 2:28). As the Son of man He suffered for sin ( Matthew 17:12), and as the Son of man He hath power on earth to forgive sins ( Matthew 9:6). As the Son of man He had not where to lay His head ( Matthew 8:20); as the Son of man "He hath on His head a golden crown" ( Revelation 14:14).

Every eye shall see Him ( Revelation 1:7), but only "the pure in heart shall see God" ( Matthew 5:8). "The Son of God became the Son of man that you who were sons of men might be made sons of God" (Augustine, Serm. 121). Jesus is one of our race, yet above the whole race, the One Man in whom mankind finds its unity, the turning point of history at the close of the old and the beginning of the new era. His absolute relation to mankind requires an absolute relation to God. He could be the Son of man only because He is the Son of God. He alone fully realizes the ideal of man, as well as that of God, combining too in His manhood all the exquisite graces of woman with the powers of man.

Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Of all the titles commonly used of Jesus in the New Testament, ‘Son of man’ was the one most used by Jesus himself and least used by others. It hardly occurs at all outside the Gospels ( Acts 7:56;  Revelation 1:13;  Revelation 14:14), and inside the Gospels is used almost solely by Jesus. By using this unusual title for himself, Jesus made people think carefully about who he was and what his mission involved ( John 12:34;  John 13:31-32).

A heavenly figure

The title ‘son of man’ comes from a vision recorded in the Old Testament book of Daniel. In this vision a person like a son of man came into the heavenly presence of God and received from him a universal and everlasting kingdom ( Daniel 7:13-14). The idea of the son of man was tied up with that of the kingdom of God, and this provided the background to Jesus’ reference to himself as the Son of man.

With the coming of Jesus, the kingdom of God came visibly into the world. The world is under the power of Satan ( 2 Corinthians 4:4;  1 John 5:19), but Jesus delivered diseased and demonized people, showing that the rule and authority of God’s kingdom can release people from Satan’s power ( Matthew 4:23-24;  Matthew 12:28;  Luke 10:9;  Luke 10:17-18;  Luke 17:20-21; see Kingdom Of God ). God’s kingdom will reach its fullest expression when Jesus returns at the end of the age to punish evil, remove Satan and reign in righteousness ( Daniel 7:13-14;  Matthew 13:41-43;  Matthew 24:30-31;  Mark 8:38).

The vision in Daniel shows, however, that the Son of man shares the kingdom with his people ( Daniel 7:14;  Daniel 7:27). Jesus therefore promised those who followed him that they would share with him in the final triumph of his kingdom ( Matthew 19:28;  Matthew 25:31-34; cf.  2 Timothy 2:11-12;  Revelation 3:12;  Revelation 3:21;  Revelation 20:4).

An earthly figure

In addition to this particular usage, the expression ‘son of man’ could be used in ordinary speech to apply to any man. It could be simply a poetic way of saying ‘a person’, and at times Jesus may have used it simply to mean ‘I’ or ‘me’ ( Numbers 23:19;  Psalms 8:4;  Ezekiel 2:1;  Ezekiel 2:3;  Ezekiel 2:8;  Matthew 11:19).

The twofold meaning of ‘son of man’ was especially appropriate as a title for Jesus. It pointed to his deity (he was the heavenly Son of God;  John 3:13;  John 6:62) and to his humanity (he was a man, a member of the human race;  Matthew 8:20). The Son of man was the embodiment of God. In his unique person he carried the authority of God into the world ( Mark 2:10;  Mark 2:28; cf.  John 5:27; see Jesus CHRIST; SON OF GOD).

Jesus’ use of ‘Son of man’ in relation to the kingdom of God likewise combined heavenly and earthly aspects. The heavenly Son of man was in fact an earthly figure born in the royal line of David and having claim to the messianic throne. Because of the Jews’ selfish nationalistic ideas of the Messiah and his kingdom, Jesus rarely spoke of himself specifically as the Messiah (see Messiah ). By using the title ‘Son of man’, he was claiming to be the Messiah without actually using the title ‘Messiah’. He knew the title ‘Son of man’ could be puzzling, but he wanted people to think about it. He wanted them to consider the evidence of his life and work, and discover for themselves the true identity of this one who called himself the Son of man ( Matthew 16:13-16;  John 9:35-36;  John 12:34).

When the Jewish leaders finally understood Jesus’ usage of the title (namely, that he claimed to be both the Davidic Messiah and the supernatural heavenly Messiah of  Daniel 7:13-14), they accused him of blasphemy and had him crucified ( Mark 14:61-64). This did not take Jesus by surprise, for he knew that the heavenly Son of man had also to become the suffering servant. He had to suffer and die before he could receive the kingdom ( Mark 8:31;  Mark 9:12;  Mark 10:45;  John 3:13-14;  John 8:28; see Servant Of The Lord ).

If, however, the crucified Son of man was to receive an eternal kingdom, his death had to be followed by resurrection ( Mark 9:31;  Mark 10:33-34). Therefore God, in a triumphant declaration of the perfection of all that Jesus had done through his obedient life and sacrificial death, raised him up and gave him glory ( 1 Peter 1:21). The full revelation of that glory will take place when the Son of man returns in the triumph of his kingdom ( Mark 8:38;  Mark 13:26;  Mark 14:62).

People's Dictionary of the Bible

Son of Man.  Matthew 8:20. This title is given to our Saviour 80 times in the New Testament. See also  Daniel 7:13. The Jews perfectly understood it to denote the Messiah. He calls himself not A son of man (among other children of men), but The Son of man (above all others)—the ideal, the universal, the perfect Man. So, on the other hand, he calls himself not A, but The Son of God—the only-begotten and eternal Son of the Father. Comp. such passages as  John 1:51;  John 3:13;  John 6:53;  Matthew 9:6;  Matthew 12:8;  Mark 2:10;  Mark 2:28. See Jesus Christ. The term Son Of Man is applied to Ezekiel and Daniel, meaning merely "man," as it does in  Numbers 23:19;  Job 25:6;  Psalms 8:4, etc.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

In the New Testament it is used forty-three times as a distinctive title of the Saviour. In the Old Testament it is used only in  Psalm 80:17 and   Daniel 7:13 with this application. It denotes the true humanity of our Lord. He had a true body (  Hebrews 2:14;  Luke 24:39 ) and a rational soul. He was perfect man.

Copyright Statement These dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. Public Domain.

Bibliography Information Easton, Matthew George. Entry for 'Son of Man'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/s/son-of-man.html. 1897.

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

a title of Christ, assumed by himself in his humiliation,  John 1:51 .

It was understood as a designation of the Messiah, according to Old Testament predictions,  Psalm 80:17   Daniel 7:13,14; but appears to indicate especially his true humanity or oneness with the human race. It is applies to him more than eighty times in the New Testament.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

See Name And Titles Of Jesus Christ