It’s ironic that a title that essentially means “human being” has come to connote the idea of divinity in the minds of so many Christians. “Son of man” is a Hebrew idiom that just means, well, “man,” or gender inclusively, human dude/dudette. The prophet Ezekiel used it to refer to himself all the time, and for Ezekiel, it connoted a sort of humility. As my brother says of himself, “I’m just a guy.” Of course, the Hebrew word for “man” was also the name of the first man, Adam. So “son of man” could also be a point of pride—infused as Adam was with the glory of God, made as he was in God’s image, “son of Adam” could be worn as a badge of honor. But essentially, between those two poles, it simply meant “human being.”

Scholars pretty much universally acknowledge that the application of the title “son of man” to Jesus in the New Testament is derived from two sources in the Hebrew Bible. One we have noted already with Ezekiel.

Daniel 7

The other use was very popular in Jesus’ day in apocalyptic circles (such as Jesus himself moved in), and it derived from a second century BCE apocalyptic book—the book of Daniel. Daniel 7:13-14, to be precise:

As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a son of man
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
and was presented before him.
To him was given dominion
and glory and kingship,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that shall not pass away,
and his kingship is one
that shall never be destroyed.

Now eventually this “son of man” figure from Daniel 7 came to be seen as a human messianic figure, but it is more likely that the original author of this passage had in mind an angelic being. Note that it does not say, “I saw a son of man,” but rather, “I saw one like a son of man.” Similarly, the angel Gabriel is “like the appearance of a man” (8:15; 10:18), has the voice of a man (8:16), and is “like the resemblance of the sons of man” (10:16). In 9:21; 10:5; and 12:6-7, angels are simply referred to as “men.” So the language of “one like a son of man” gives the strong impression that the figure in 7:13 is an angel. This archangel is given an “everlasting dominion” over “all peoples, nations, and languages.” Moreover, it is said in verse 27,

The kingship and dominion
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven
shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High;
their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey them.

The people of the holy ones of the Most High. The “holy ones” here refer to the angelic hosts of the Most High, as is the case invariably throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls (roughly contemporary literature of the same genre). The “people” of the holy ones refer to Israel, who as a nation share in the dominion of their champion archangel, who fights on their behalf. This is a perfect representation of the standard ancient cosmology, in which what takes place in the heavenly realm is mirrored below on earth—dominion is given to the champion angel of Israel, and the dominion is shared with the nation itself. What this describes is the victory of Yahweh’s angelic forces (who stand behind Israel) over the demonic forces of chaos (who stand behind the nations). In Daniel 10:21, the archangel Michael is identified as the prince (or champion) of Israel, and later still it becomes clear that the angelic figure, the “one like a son of man,” of chapter 7 is indeed identified as Michael:

At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.¹

The eternal dominion described in chapter 7, ushered in by “one like a son of man” who ascends to the side of the Ancient One, is paralleled in chapter 12 by Michael’s rise and his victory over Israel’s enemies, ushering in an era of everlasting peace. No mention is made in chapter 12 of any other agent, and Michael is specifically identified as the agent assigned to the protection of Israel (which is the duty of a king).

1 Enoch

The book of 1 Enoch (also known as the Similitudes of Enoch) provides yet another depiction of a “son of man” figure who is given preeminence in the heavens, who shares a throne with Yahweh, judges the nations and is the champion of the people of God. This agent is referred to as a “being whose countenance had the appearance of a son of man,” who is nevertheless like “one of the holy angels.” It is difficult to determine whether this refers to a human or to an angel. After initially being described as “having the appearance of a son of man,” he is thereafter referred to as “that son of man.” It seems as though this reflects a time period before “Son of Man” became a well-worn title for a messianic agent, but he is no doubt identified here as the messiah (“the Anointed”), as well as the “Elect One.” The author alternates between these three names. The son of man is not Michael, as in Daniel 12. Michael is here identified alongside Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel as subservient to the son of man. At the end of the book, this son of man figure seems to be identified as Enoch, but some scholars believe this may have been an addition. At any rate, the exact classification of the son of man figure here, whether human or angelic, is ambiguous, and perhaps intentionally so. In apocalyptic circles, it was commonly believed that exalted humans became like the angels. This was the case in the Qumran community, who believed that as the elect, they already shared in the fellowship of angels, as a foretaste of the kingdom which was to come after the final judgment. The apocalyptic prophet Jesus of Nazareth also taught that exalted humans became like the angels (Mark 12:25). So it may be that here in 1 Enoch, what we have is a bona-fide son of man (human being) who was nevertheless exalted to angelic status at the end of days.

And there I saw One who had a head of days [i.e. Yahweh], and His head was white like wool, and with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a son of man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that son of man, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days. And he answered and said unto me: “This is the son of man who hath righteousness, with whom dwells righteousness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of Spirits has chosen him, and whose lot is to have preeminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness forever.” (1 Enoch 46:1-3)

Here the son of man, likely an exalted human being, is said to have been granted preeminence before God, for eternity. In other words, next to God, nothing in all creation outranks him.

Gospel of Mark

Now according to the Gospels, Jesus used the term “son of man” in a variety of different ways. In regard to himself, he sometimes used it in the same sense as Ezekiel did, to emphasize his humility (e.g., “the Son of Man has no place to lay his head”). Other times, he uses it in a sense that is open to interpretation, but probably just means “human being.” A famous instance is in Mark 2:27-28:

Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the son of man is lord even of the sabbath.”

In this case, “son of man” could be a reference to himself, and a claim that he has the unique authority to override God’s sabbath ordinances (or at least the authority to disagree with the Pharisaic interpretations of those ordinances). But the more likely scenario is that Jesus is here drawing out the deeper meaning of the sabbath law, which is a principle of rest—a humanizing principle. In this case, “son of man” is not a title for himself, but carries its ordinary sense, as follows:

The sabbath was made for the human, not the human for the sabbath; therefore, the human is lord even of the sabbath.

Even if, however, Jesus did mean to refer to himself uniquely as “son of man” in this case, this does not amount to anything like a claim to divinity, as will become clear in future posts that will deal with much better examples of this sort of ostensible claim to divine prerogatives.

Scholars differ over whether Jesus ever used “Son of Man” for himself in the sense of the coming cosmic agent of judgment, or whether Jesus was identified as this messianic “Son of Man” by his disciples after their visions of Jesus exalted to the right hand of God. There is no way to be sure. It is possible that Jesus saw himself as the last prophet before the coming of the Son of Man, which would explain why he generally refers to this eschatological Son of Man in the third person, and seems to portray the Son of Man as a defender of Jesus’ own honor (see below), but for our purposes, it is sufficient to take the Gospel accounts at face value. The only question we are concerned with is whether these Son of Man sayings constitute claims for divinity, and it is clear that whatever the case may be with the historical Jesus, for the Jesus of the Gospels, these sayings do not constitute claims to divinity.

Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8:38)

See the parallel in the Similitudes:

And on the day of their affliction there shall be rest on the earth,
And before them they shall fall and not rise again:
And there shall be no one to take them with his hands and raise them:
For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed.
The name of the Lord of Spirits be blessed. (1 Enoch 48:10)

As in Mark, here in the Similitudes, the rejection of the Messiah is equated with the rejection of God himself, and those who rejected the Messiah will not be raised to life when the Son of Man is revealed (his revelation is depicted in the verses prior). As in Mark, the Son of Man is equated with the Messiah, and so those who are ashamed of the Messiah will be punished by him when he is revealed at the end of days. In both Mark and in the Similitudes, the Son of Man is accompanied by angels who are at his service. The parallel imagery from later in Mark’s gospel is more overtly dependent upon Daniel 7:

Then they will see “the Son of Man coming in clouds” with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. (Mark 13:26-27 )

The wording has changed from “one like a son of man” to simply “the Son of Man,” but the imagery of “coming in clouds” makes it clear that Mark is borrowing from Daniel 7. By now, the “one like a son of man” has been shortened to “son of man,” hence the angelic nature of the agent has been lost. The Son of Man, now equated with the Messiah, is understood to be a human figure who, as in the Similitudes has been given preeminence, commanding even the angels. There is no claim to divinity here. What we see is divine agency. The “Son of Man” is the human agent whom Yahweh has chosen to exercise his authority on the day of judgment. Why then, you may ask, does the high priest charge Jesus with blasphemy, when Jesus claims to be this Son of Man? If the Son of Man is merely human, what was blasphemous about his claim?

Well, a number of things could be considered blasphemous by the high priest. Let’s take a look at the passage itself, before evaluating it:

The high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
Jesus said, “I am. And ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?” All of them condemned him as deserving death. Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” The guards also took him over and beat him. (Mark 14:61-65)

First, it is important to note that Jesus is here (roughly) quoting Daniel 7, but the high priest was a Sadducee, and the Sadducees did not accept Daniel as scripture. More importantly, however, is the context of Jesus’ claim. Jesus has just been accused of threatening to destroy the temple, and to rebuild it himself. In other words, Jesus has been accused of threatening the regime of the very high priest who is standing over him. When the high priest asks Jesus if he is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One (again, parallelism), Jesus responds in the affirmative, and then proceeds to identify himself as the eschatological Son of Man who will come in judgment. In other words, Jesus is saying, “You better watch out, because by condemning me, you are condemning yourself.” Although Jesus did not technically threaten to destroy the temple (he did predict it would be destroyed, and he did stage a miniature coup d’état there for a week—according to Mark—holding the temple elite hostage on threat of populace revolt), Jesus is now confirming the accusation himself by implying that the high priest would see him coming on the clouds to overthrow the current temple regime and establish his own.

The accusation of blasphemy means either one or both of the following:

(1) Blasphemy against God’s temple. Jesus has threatened its destruction and has now threatened the dynasty of the current high priesthood.

(2) Jesus is falsely attributing to himself the prerogatives that only God’s authentic messianic agent has. Because Jesus is on trial (in other words, defeated), he is clearly not who he claims to be. He is thus blasphemously claiming that God has sent him when God patently has not.

There is nothing like a claim to divinity here, and there is no indication that the high priest thought Jesus was claiming anything like divinity. There are all sorts of forms of blasphemy, and the kind of blasphemy in which a human claims to be God is quite rare, especially for a Jew such as Jesus. Moreover, when they then proceeded to mock him, they taunted him by challenging him to “prophesy.” If the charge against him was a blasphemous claim to divinity, why would they tell him to prophesy? Clearly this indicates that his blasphemy was falsely claiming to speak for God: in other words, they executed him as a false prophet.

1. Many scholars believe chapters 7 and 12 did not share the same author. If that is the case, the identification of Michael as the one who delivers Israel as depicted in chapter 7 is still the earliest interpretation of 7:13 available, and accords well with the language used there. [BACK]