"Son of Man"

What is this concept?

"Son of Man" is Jesus's most characteristic self-designation in the Gospels. He uses it over eighty times. It is, on its face, one of the strangest titles he could have chosen — because in Hebrew and Aramaic, "son of man" (ben adam in Hebrew, bar enash in Aramaic) simply means "a human being." It is a way of saying "one of us." To call yourself "son of man" is, at the most basic level, to call yourself a mortal.

But the phrase carries layers of meaning that accumulate across the Old Testament, and by the time Jesus uses it, it evokes a rich theological tradition that connects human frailty, Israel's destiny, and God's ultimate purpose for humanity.

Where does it come from?

1. Ezekiel — Human Frailty Before God

God addresses the prophet Ezekiel as "son of man" over ninety times throughout the book. The effect is striking: Ezekiel receives extraordinary visions of God's glory, throne, and cosmic purpose — and in every case, God reminds him of what he is. "Son of man, stand on your feet and I will speak with you" (Ezek. 2:1). The title is a reminder of the gap between the human and the divine. Ezekiel is a mortal, a creature of dust, standing in the presence of the Creator. The title emphasises his humanity, not his exaltation.

2. The Psalms — What Is Humanity?

Psalm 8 asks the question that frames the entire tradition:

"What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honour."

— Psalm 8:4–5

"Son of man" here is synonymous with "man" — humanity in general. The Psalm marvels that God has given such glory to mortal creatures. Hebrews 2:6–9 later applies this Psalm to Jesus — reading him as the representative human through whom humanity's intended destiny is fulfilled. The point, even in Hebrews, is not that the "son of man" is divine, but that God's purpose for humanity is realised in this particular human.

3. Daniel 7 — The Decisive Text

Daniel 7 is where everything changes. The prophet sees a vision of four great beasts rising from the sea — representing four successive empires that dominate and oppress Israel. Then the scene shifts to a heavenly courtroom:

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him."

— Daniel 7:13–14

The literary structure of Daniel 7 is built on a contrast. The four empires are represented as beasts — violent, predatory, inhuman. The figure who receives God's kingdom is represented as human. The beasts come from the sea (chaos); the human figure comes with the clouds of heaven (God's domain). The symbolism is unmistakable: the empires are bestial; God's kingdom belongs to a human figure.

Several features of the Daniel 7 vision are critical for the later debate. First, the son of man figure receives the kingdom — it is given to him by the Ancient of Days. He does not possess it by his own right. Second, he is distinguished from the Ancient of Days — he comes "to" the Ancient of Days and is "presented before him." Third, he is described as "one like a son of man" — that is, a figure who appears human. The entire point is his humanity, in contrast to the beastly empires.

The figure also represents humanity more broadly. In Daniel's symbolic world, the nations are beasts because they embody the opposite of God's intention for creation. The "son of man" — the human one — receives the kingdom because humanity, not bestial violence, is the true image of God. The vision is a restoration of the Psalm 8 promise: humanity, crowned with glory and honour, exercising God's dominion over the earth.

4. Later Jewish Interpretation

In the Similitudes of 1 Enoch (ch. 37–71, probably 1st century BCE/CE), the "Son of Man" figure becomes an individual pre-existent heavenly being who will judge the nations. This is the most developed pre-Christian interpretation of Daniel 7, and it shows that some Jewish readers did interpret the "son of man" as an individual messianic figure rather than a purely corporate symbol. However, even in 1 Enoch, the Son of Man is not identified as God. He is God's chosen one, hidden with God before creation, and revealed at the end of days — an exalted agent, not a second deity.

4 Ezra 13 (late 1st century CE) similarly describes a "man from the sea" who destroys Israel's enemies and gathers the faithful — combining Daniel 7 imagery with messianic expectation. The figure is empowered by God but remains subordinate to God.

How does it appear in the New Testament?

Jesus uses "Son of Man" as his primary self-designation, and his usage draws on every layer of the Old Testament tradition.

The human dimension: Jesus uses the title in contexts that emphasise his vulnerability and mortality: "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head" (Matt. 8:20). He speaks of the Son of Man being "delivered into the hands of men" (Mark 9:31), being mocked, flogged, and killed. The title connects him to Ezekiel — a human being standing before God, carrying God's message, subject to human suffering.

The representative dimension: Jesus is the representative human through whom God's kingdom comes. Just as Daniel's "son of man" receives dominion on behalf of "the saints," Jesus inaugurates God's rule on behalf of God's people. He embodies Israel's vocation: where Israel failed, the Son of Man succeeds. He also represents humanity as a whole — the one through whom Adam's lost dominion (Psalm 8) is restored.

The Daniel 7 dimension: Jesus explicitly invokes Daniel 7:13 at his trial before the Sanhedrin:

"You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

— Mark 14:62

This is a claim to be the figure of Daniel 7 — the one who receives God's kingdom. It is important to note what Jesus is not claiming: he is not claiming to be the Ancient of Days. He is claiming to be the one who comes to the Ancient of Days, who is seated at the right hand of Power — that is, in the position of the honoured agent, not in the position of God himself. "Right hand" is the place of the king's chief minister, the supreme representative, the one who exercises delegated authority.

Why does it matter for the debate?

The "Son of Man" title is Jesus's own chosen self-designation — which makes it especially significant for understanding how he understood his own identity. If Jesus wanted to claim to be God, "Son of Man" is a deeply puzzling choice. The phrase in Hebrew and Aramaic means "human being." Its Old Testament background emphasises human frailty (Ezekiel), human vocation under God (Psalm 8), and a human representative who receives God's kingdom (Daniel 7). At every level, the title points to humanity, not deity.

The Daniel 7 background is particularly important. In that vision, the "son of man" is definitively distinguished from the Ancient of Days. He comes to God; he does not come as God. He receives the kingdom; he does not possess it by right. And the kingdom, once received, belongs to "the saints of the Most High" — the people of God whom the son of man represents.

What do the different traditions say?

Trinitarian: Jesus's use of "Son of Man" is a claim to the exalted figure of Daniel 7 who receives universal dominion. This figure "comes with the clouds of heaven" — and in the Old Testament, coming on clouds is a divine prerogative (Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1). The authority the Son of Man exercises — forgiving sins (Mark 2:10), authority over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), and future judgment of all nations (Matt. 25:31–32) — goes beyond what any mere human agent could claim. C.S. Lewis and others have argued that Jesus's "Son of Man" claim, combined with his other statements, constitutes an implicit claim to divine authority. Some scholars, like Larry Hurtado, emphasise that the early Christ-devotion attached to the "Son of Man" figure demonstrates a belief in divine identity that goes beyond the Daniel 7 framework alone.

Biblical Unitarian: "Son of Man" is the title that makes Jesus's self-understanding most clear. He is a human being — bar enash, one of us — who has been designated by God to receive the kingdom. The Daniel 7 background is definitive: the son of man comes to God, receives authority from God, and represents God's people. Every element of the title emphasises humanity, delegated authority, and representative vocation. Even the "clouds of heaven" imagery, while sometimes associated with deity in the OT, describes in Daniel 7 how the son of man approaches God — not how God acts. The title also carries the corporate dimension of Daniel 7: Jesus is not only an individual but the representative of "the saints of the Most High." His destiny is their destiny. He receives the kingdom so that they may share in it. Anthony Buzzard has argued at length that the "Son of Man" title, properly understood, is the single strongest piece of evidence for a unitarian Christology — Jesus's own chosen way of describing himself is as a human being exalted by God.

Historical-Critical: The corporate interpretation of Daniel 7 — in which the "son of man" represents Israel as a whole — was the dominant reading in critical scholarship for much of the 20th century. More recently, scholars have emphasised the possibility that the figure is an individual heavenly representative whose destiny is bound to the people he represents. The consensus is shifting toward a "both/and" reading: an individual figure who embodies and represents a community. In any case, the Daniel 7 "son of man" is not God. He is a figure who stands before God, receives authority from God, and exercises God's reign on behalf of God's people. This is consistent with a wide range of early Christian Christologies, from the very lowest to the moderately high.

Go Deeper

For further study on the "Son of Man" title and its significance:

• John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia commentary) — definitive critical commentary
• Anthony Buzzard, The Coming Kingdom of the Messiah
• James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making — ch. on Son of Man traditions
• Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ — ch. on Christ-devotion and Daniel 7
• N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God — ch. on Jesus and Daniel 7
• Maurice Casey, The Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7
• Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm — on the divine council and the "two powers" tradition

See how the "Son of Man" concept shapes interpretation of specific texts:

• Mark 10:18 — "No one is good except God alone"
• Acts 2:22 — "A man attested to you by God"
• 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 — "That God may be all in all"
• Hebrews 1:1–14 — "The radiance of God's glory"