In the gospels Jesus is frequently depicted as referring himself as the “Son of man.” What this label means has been the subject of a great deal of debate among theologians and biblical scholars, with no clear resolution in sight. There are many possible uses, all of which serve to complicate more than they resolve.
Depending on how one counts, references to the “Son of man” appear between 50 and 70 times in the four gospels. Their importance to Jesus’ self-identification cannot be downplayed, and since Jesus’ identity is at the heart of what the “good news” is all about, the meaning of the “Son of man” is arguably one of the most important puzzles in New Testament scholarship. That’s what makes the lack of any solution all the more curious.
The gospel texts themselves unfortunately do not provide any hints as to what Jesus meant. The gospel authors themselves didn’t seem to think that such a gloss was necessary, suggesting that they expected their audiences to already understand. If Jesus were using it in an unusual or unique manner, at least one of the gospel authors would have said something. This leads to one of two likely conclusions: either people generally knew it to be the title of the Messiah, or they knew it to mean something different.
Jesus was a Jew and there are two Jewish sources for identifying possible meanings of the title. The Hebrew ben adam appears in the Septuagint as a very generic label meaning something like “man,” “one,” “human,” or “human being.” In Ezekiel 2:1, 6, the prophet is addressed as “son of man” by an angel in a manner that implies his human weaknesses are being contrasted with divine power.
The Aramaic bar enas appears just once, in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, in reference to “one like a (son of) man.” Here the label is thought to refer to the faithful, chosen follower of God, and is contrasted against the members of other kingdoms who are more like animals. Others, though, think that the label is describing an angelic figure related to Israel. Some argue that this same figure appears to have developed into one of messianic judgment in the first book of Enoch, but it’s not clear if this development occurred before or after Jesus.
Which of the two is the most likely background of Jesus’ self-identification as the “Son of man”? This may depend upon the context in which the label appears. Most of the time when Jesus refers to himself as the Son of man, he is describing the Son of man’s fate on earth: to suffer, to be misunderstood, and ultimately to die and then rise again.
At the same time, though, there are passages where use of the label would have been appropriate yet it does not appear. Why would this be? This suggests to some that the title “Son of man” refers to Jesus’ status as the chosen leader of God’s chosen people, the messiah.
It is curious, though, that the label is also only ever used by Jesus before his crucifixion. There are no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus where he continues to describe himself as the “Son of man.” Could this suggest, then, that he wasn’t the Son of man anymore?
There is also another school of thought which argues that Jesus uses “Son of man” to describe a messianic, apocalyptic figure, but that this figure was not himself. Mark 8:38, for example, appears to create a distinction between Jesus and the Son of man: “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” After Easter, though, a Christological faith in a risen Jesus came to blend the two.
Others have argued, contrary to the above, that “Son of man” was used by Jesus in a manner like that used in the Hebrew. When Jesus describes himself as the “Son of man,” he is saying that he just human — perhaps a generalization meaning “I” or “one.” It is also thought that this may have been a common way to humbly say that one is merely another human being like others. None of the creedal confessions about Jesus include this title. Christians have recited that Jesus is “Lord” or “Son of God, not “Son of man.”
On this view, the interpretation of an exalted “Son of man” with apocalyptic connotations was a product of how the early Christian community interpreted traditions about a resurrected man who had conquered both death and sin. Not understanding the idiomatic meanings of the Hebrew and Aramaic that were common in Galilee, especially when encountering the titles in an awkward Greek translation, early Christians created entirely new meanings based upon the presumed example of Daniel, a popular text at the time.
All of this is rather speculative, though. There exists interesting evidence for a variety of interpretations and none are unambiguously superior to the others. There are better arguments in some cases, but not enough to pretend to have a certain answer.
