SON OF MAN, THE (בֶּנ־אָדָ֖ם; ὁ ὑιὸ̀ς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Used by Matthew 32 times; Mark 14; Luke 26; John 12; Acts 7; Heb 1; and Rev 2—a total of 94 times in NT—always by Christ Himself, except in John 12:34; Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6, and Rev 1:13; 14:14). Traditionally the appellation, Son of man, has been assumed to designate the lowly humanity of Christ in distinction from His divine nature. Certainly this meaning is involved, but a much deeper significance emerges from a closer examination of its usage.

1. OT and purported apocryphal sources. In Ezekiel 2:1-3 “Son of man” clearly designates “a child of Adam by descent” (Girdlestone, p. 46) as elsewhere in this prophecy where it occurs fifty-seven times. The designation in Psalm 8:4, from which the passage in Hebrews is quoted, appears to be applicable to both mortal man and Christ in His incarnate human identification with man. Psalm 80:17, an appeal, during the national decline, for a hero to appear and redeem Israel, may well have influenced Jesus’ Messianic consciousness (Stalker, ISBE, V, 2829).

The most important occurrence of the phrase “Son of man” is found in Daniel 7:13. There it may allude primarily to a personification of the ideal Israel or the saints of the Most High (Herbert G. May, IB, V, 76), but the deeper meaning appears to suggest a Messianic figure (see Kennedy, IB, VI, 461).

While some scholars would trace Jesus’ use of the term Son of man to the Apocryphal or Pseudepigraphical lit., esp. the Book of Enoch, this is categorically denied by both Strachan and Campbell. The notion of Hans Lietzmann, adopted by Wellhausen, that the title Son of man derived from the Aram. word barnash, Aram. being the language which they assumed Jesus spoke, and the word meaning vaguely “anyone” or “everyman,” was applied to Jesus in Asia Minor in the first half of the 2nd cent. and later incorporated into the gospels, is categorically denied by Stalker and Dalman, and later admitted by Wellhausen himself to be untenable (Stalker p. 2830).

In Daniel 10:16, 18 KJV we read of “one like the similitude of the sons of men &--;like an Adam, and yet not an Adam, because not yet incarnate” (Girdlestone, p. 47). The Heb. term Enosh is sometimes used as a parallel with Ben-Adam, the son of man (Job 25:6; Pss 8:4; 90:3; 144:3; ibid. p. 50).

The Heb. word גֶּ֫בֶר֒, H1505, “man as a mighty being,” is used by Jeremiah in a special sense in what Girdlestone regards as a Messianic allusion. “...the Lord has created a new thing on the earth: a woman protects [‘encompass,’ ASV] a man”; “Literally, ‘a female shall compass (or enclose) a Mighty One’” (Jer 31:22; cf. Isa 7:14; ibid. p. 54).

2. NT use of the term Son of man. Scholars differ as to whether Jesus drew upon Ezekiel’s use of the term Son of man to emphasize His humanity and His dependence upon the Father for the execution of His earthly work (cf. Num 23:19; Job 25:6; Heb 2:11). The designation in Psalm 8:4, from which Hebrews 2:6 is quoted, appears to be applicable to both mortal man and Christ in His incarnate human identity with man. That Jesus’ divine self-consciousness developed from His first visit to the Temple at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41-52) to His crisis experience on the cross, there seems to be no room for reasonable doubt. Evidently, as He passed through the successive crises of His baptism (Matt 3:13-17), temptation (4:1-11), transfiguration (17:1-13), premonition of death and resurrection (20:17-19), triumphal entry (21:1-11), lament over Jerusalem (23:37-39), the last passover Supper (26:17-35), Gethsemane (26:36-56), His final trial (26:57-27:26), and finally His climactic cry from the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). He emerged with an ever increasing consciousness of His divine oneness with the Father (John 8:16; 10:30-38).

The occurrence of the title Son of man as used by Christ of Himself points up certain important characteristics of His divine-human being and nature. (1) Son of man signifies Christ’s Messiahship. While Jesus used the term as descriptive of His Messiahship, He consistently avoided its application to Himself because of the militaristic and political connotations which it had for the Jewish people of His time. Though some 1st-cent. Jews may have identified the term Messiah with Son of man, this would have been exceptional. That the early Christians did so there can be no reasonable doubt (E. Johnson, IB, VII, 343, 344). (2) Christ’s incarnation is linked early in His ministry with the title Son of man (John 3:13). The uniqueness of Christ is suggested in His words to Nicodemus: “No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man”; and His ubiquity is implied in the words “who is in heaven.” If this phrase is genuine (allowed by the Western, Caesarean, and Syrian texts), it attests His deity. Thus, the Son of man is God from heaven, in human form on earth, and at the same time in heaven. His incarnate divine—human nature reflects the purpose and character of His mission—God in and with man reconciling him to God (cf. John 1:14; 12:13; see Clarke, I, 532, 533; Wilber F. Howard and Arthur John Gossip, IB, VIII, 507, 508). Christ’s redemptive cross makes explicit the meaning of the incarnation in v. 14. (3) Son of man identifies Christ with dependent humanity (Matt 8:20; Luke 9:58). Whatever demands might be laid upon the scribe for discipleship (Matt 8:19) he and all other followers would find a common human understanding and fellowship in the deepest deprivation and suffering with God as Son of man. (4) Son of man signifies Christ’s authoritative and red emptive mission (Matt 9:6 and parallels; Luke 19:10). However the authority of “the keys of the kingdom” (Matt 16:19) may be understood, God retained exclusively for the Son of man the authority to forgive sins on earth, though it may be permitted to man to absolve sins in the sense of declaring forgiveness to his fellows when they have met the divine requirements (Harper Study Bible, p. 1450, note on 9:6). (5) Son of man signifies Christ’s total redemptive victory (John 3:14). It is likely that the analogy which Christ made between the “serpent on the pole” in the wilderness (Num 21:9) and the Son of man suggests much more than His death. In fact, Christ’s death, as taught throughout the NT, is inseparable from His resurrection and ascension. Thus the lifting up of the Son of man here would seem to prefigure the complete victory of Christ’s redemptive work in His atoning death, glorious resurrection, and consummating ascension. Clarke thinks that the analogy may well include even His mediatorial work (pp. 532, 533; see also Wilber F. Howard in support of this position, IB, VIII, 508). Clarke says that Jewish tradition regarded the serpent as a type of resurrection (ibid.). This view accords with Christ’s words in the preceding verse where He spoke of ascending up to heaven (cf. Dan 7:13; Mark 14:62; Acts 7:56). (6) Son of man signifies the universal lordship of Jesus Christ (Mark 14:62). Christ’s universal lordship is asserted in His preface to the great commission where He claims “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18), and as expressed to His disciples in Acts 1:8. In fact, it is Christ’s universal lordship that constitutes the burden of apostolic preaching in Acts. The word “Lord” in application to the risen Christ occurs 110 times in Acts—more often and more im portant than any other word in the book (cf. Matt 3:3; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). (7) Son of man signifies preeminently the final judgment of Jesus Christ (Matt 13:41, 42; 19:28). Christ qualifies as Judge of all men because He, through His incarnation, became one with all men, and still retained His deity. Paul, in his Mars’ Hill address at Athens, makes clear this climactic and final function of Christ (Acts 17:31), as he also did in his letter to the Romans (2:16). And John vividly depicts this function of the Son of man in the final great assize (Rev 20:11-15).

Bibliography A. Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I (n.d.), 532, 533; R. B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament (1897), 45-47; K. Lake and F. J. Foakes-Jackson, The Beginnings of Christianity, I (1920), 368-384; C. H. Kraeling, Anthropos and the Son of Man (1927); J. Stalker, ISBE, V (1939), 2829; H. B. Sharman, Son of Man and Kingdom of God (1943); G. S. Duncan, Jesus, Son of Man (1947); S. E. Johnson, IB, VII (1951), 343, 344; W. F. Howard and A. J. Gossip, IB, VIII (1952), 507, 508; C. H Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1953), 241-249; H. G. May, IB, VI (1956), 76; S. E. Johnson, IBD, IV (1962), 413-420; H. Lindsell, Harper Study Bible (1964), 1450.