What is the meaning of Christ's title 'Son of Man'?

[Laura]

I do not understand the title, Son of Man. I would appreciate some explanation(s) what it means. Thank you.

[Anna Stickles]

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Dan 7:13


Not only this but maybe Jesus was stressing his identification with humanity and his humility. He who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made himself nothing. Taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man.

[D. W. Dickens]

Wikipedia has a nice article, though it's more historical than patristic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Man

[Laura]

Thank you for your replies. You have both clarified something that has puzzled me. Anna, I particularly appreciate you pointing out the identification of Jesus with humanity and the humility that He demonstrates by doing so.

The article was also helpful as it confirmed what I had suspected. It was a term familiar to the people of the time and they understood exactly what Jesus was saying when He used it.

[Laura]

I am still pondering this. Literally, Jesus is not a son of a man (Joseph), but is the Son of God. I take the point that Jesus was using the title to demonstrate his humanity as He is, at the same time, the Son of the Virgin. The term was used as a "colloquialism" for both humanity or oneself. He was also referring to the quote from Daniel.

I can not explain what is missing. I have this feeling that there are more pieces of the puzzle just out of my grasp. If I could only find them, the picture will be revealed.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I am still pondering this. Literally, Jesus is not a son of a man (Joseph), but is the Son of God. I take the point that Jesus was using the title to demonstrate his humanity as He is, at the same time, the Son of the Virgin. The term was used as a "colloquialism" for both humanity or oneself. He was also referring to the quote from Daniel.

I can not explain what is missing. I have this feeling that there are more pieces of the puzzle just out of my grasp. If I could only find them, the picture will be revealed.

Jesus as Christ is also the Son of Man as well as being the pre-eternal Word of God.

In other words at His incarnation the pre-eternal Word of God the Father adopts the fullness of humanity except for sin.

Thus Christ the Word of God is fully man, and Son of Man.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

Some more references might prove helpful:


What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?

Psalm 8:4


Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand,
Upon the son of man whom You made strong for Yourself.

Psalm 80:17

We are, of course, not talking about the son of a man, but about a son of man{kind}, "man" being used in a generic sense rather than a specific sense, a member of the {hu}man race.

Herman the obvious Pooh

[D. W. Dickens]

In other words at His incarnation the pre-eternal Word of God the Father adopts the fullness of humanity except for sin.


I'd say His incarnation adopts the fullness of humanity. And in fact enlivens us to be fully human.

Sin isn't a part of our fullness, but is the absence of our fullness. I think it's important to emphasize that sin is no part of "being human", but rather a failure to "be truly human".

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I'd say His incarnation adopts the fullness of humanity. And in fact enlivens us to be fully human.

Sin isn't a part of our fullness, but is the absence of our fullness. I think it's important to emphasize that sin is no part of "being human", but rather a failure to "be truly human".

This is quite correct.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosta]

In the patristic sense, Son of Man signifies the humanity of Christ, being of the same essense as us except sin, and Son of God designates his divinity being of one essence with God the Father.

In a scholarly biblical approach the term Son of Man is quite a fascinating study. In the NT we never find others calling Christ "Son of Man", except in one instance in Acts. Christ refers to himself as such, while the early church has always confessed him as Son of God, and this title has passed down to our generation through apostolic tradition. Thus the Son of Man title and the Son of Man "sayings" are unique preservations of the gospel accounts. Christ also refered to himself soley as "Son" , like when he said that the day and hour of his coming no one knows, "not the angels in heaven nor the Son".

One aspect of the Son of Man sayings that Christ taught was in apocalyptic terms. He uses the title for himself when he describes his coming again as the pantocrator and Judge (Mark 8.38, Matt 24.27, Lk 17.24, Jn 5.27)

Christ answered the chief priests when asked if he was the messiahwith the following: "I am, And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven."(Mk 14.62)

Right before the Transfiguration accounts, Christ tells his disciples, "For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in His own glory and in His Fathers and of the holy angels. But i tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Kingdom of God (Lk 9.26-27)

This is important because it seems to tie in with the only examplle of someone other than the Lord himself refering to Him as "Son of Man". Its by Stephen the first martyr in Acts 7.54-60,Stephen did not back down from the angry mob of persecutors but proclaimed Christ, and was awarded a vision fulfilling these prophecies, prior to his martyrdom. (Lk 7. 56): "(Stephen)... And said, Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the Right hand of God!...
In my humble opinion it maybe a title Christ used of himself to designate his mystical importance in his earthly ministry and in its finality in the "Coming" Kingdom of God.
While Son of God may designate the Church's understanding of him as not only the messiah who in the future will have a second coming to judge and establish the Kingdom of God, but also as the pre-existent eternal Logos born of a Virgin with no earthly father.

Again this is just my humble theory.

[Anna Stickles]

I found a beautiful, very full expression of Christ as both Son of Man and Son of God in St Ireneaus yesterday.



"they thus wander from the truth, because their doctrine departs from Him who is truly God, being ignorant that His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Father's pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord, who did also suffer for us, and rose again on our behalf, and who will come again in the glory of His Father, to raise up all flesh, and for the manifestation of salvation, and to apply the rule of just judgment to all who were made by Him.

There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gathered together all things in Himself.

But in every respect, too, He is man, the formation of God; and thus He took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in Himself: so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time. Against Heresies (Bk 3.16.6)



It is interesting to me that we normally think of Christ, "putting on humanity" and here St Ireneaus stresses, in opposition to gnostic beliefs that interpreted the Incarnation as a "spiritual Christ" coming upon a human Jesus, that He took up man into Himself. We usually only associate this "taking up" with the resurrection and maybe this is a comment on how inseparably the Fathers saw the Incarnation and the Resurrection. I don't know. Just some random thoughts.

There seems to be some implication here too, that the Incarnation may have been necessary even without the Fall? Since the saint is connecting this with Christ becoming supreme in all things and summing up all things in Himself. This goes beyond simply seeing the Incarnation in its aspect of healing humanity.

[Fr Michael Monos]

Some quotes from the Fathers might be useful:

Saint Irenaeus:

Therefore, by remitting sins, He did indeed heal man, while He also manifested Himself who He was. For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator.

Saint Athanasios the Great:

For He who is the Son of God, became Himself the Son of Man; and, as Word, He gives from the Father, for all things which the Father does and gives, He does and supplies through Him; and as the Son of Man, He Himself is said after the manner of men to receive what proceeds from Him, because His Body is none other than His, and is a natural recipient of grace, as has been said. For He received it as far as His man's nature was exalted; which exaltation was its being deified. But such an exaltation the Word Himself always had according to the Father's Godhead and perfection, which was His.

Saint Ambrose:

When we read, then, that the Lord of glory was crucified, let us not suppose that He was crucified as in His glory. It is because He Who is God is also man, God by virtue of His Divinity, and by taking upon Him of the flesh, the man Christ Jesus, that the Lord of glory is said to have been crucified; for, possessing both natures, that is, the human and the divine, He endured the Passion in His humanity, in order that without distinction He Who suffered should be called both Lord of glory and Son of man, even as it is written: "Who descended from heaven."

Saint Basil the Great:

Therefore, in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, seeing that we recognise that He has two natures but only one subsistence compounded of both, when we contemplate His natures we speak of His divinity and His humanity, but when we contemplate the subsistence compounded of the natures we sometimes use terms that have reference to His double nature, as "Christ," and "at once God and man," and "God Incarnate;" and sometimes those that imply only one of His natures, as "God" alone, or "Son of God," and "man" alone, or "Son of Man;" sometimes using names that imply His loftiness and sometimes those that imply His lowliness. For He Who is alike God and man is one, being the former from the Father ever without cause, but having become the latter afterwards for His love towards man.


Fr. Michael

[Vasiliki D.]

Fr. Thomas Hopko identifies the names bestowed on Christ by the Holy Scriptures and the Church Fathers and explains their significance.


http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/namesofjesus

[Grace Singh]

I do not understand the title, Son of Man. I would appreciate some explanation(s) what it means. Thank you.

i have always understood this to in fact be a reference to Daniel.

"I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)

when Christ calls Himself the "Son of Man", He may well be refering to Himself as the One prophesied above. this, as well as a refernce to His humanity.

[Ben Johnson]

I agree. He most likely was referring to Daniel and as Himself being a human. Today one of the Hebrew words for "human" is "ben-Adam," son of Adam. A lot of times in Hebrew, "son" means more than just offspring. In Acts 4:36 we have a disciple named Joseph. He was such an encourager the Apostles named him "Barnabbas," son of encouragement.

[David Franklin]

I do not understand the title, Son of Man. I would appreciate some explanation(s) what it means. Thank you.

Hello all. I know the question is over 2 years old, but I would like to comment on the "son of man".

The phrase "son of man" occurs about 200 times in KJV and 82 times in gospels.

The first reference in the Bible is in Number 23:19 in a statement about the attributes of God. God is not the "son of man" that changes His mind.

Job refers to the "son of man" twice and seems to be a reference to the human condition.

Psalms refers to the "son of man" four times.
Psa 8:4 God refers to humans as the greatest of God's physical creation giving him Authority over all of it (reference to Genesis).

Ezekiel is by far the most prolific user of the phrase in the Old Testament. Here God refers to Ezekiel the prophet as the "son of man". Some of the OT prophets refer to themselves as "son of man"

All of the above references appear to address the fallen, human condition of mankind.

However, Jesus is the most prolific user of the phrase in the NT refering to Himself. The Jews appear to have clearly understood that Jesus was referring to himself as the Messiah.

Jesus in His teaching on the Mount of Olives on the day before His arrest (John 12:20-36) told his followers that He, "son of man" must die. Jews clearly understood that Jesus was refering to himself as Messiah. But this was contradictory to their understanding of prophesy in Daniel 7:12-14 where the "Son of man" is a clear reference to Messiah ("Christ" John 12:34) and that His kingdom would last forever. Obviously they did not understand that Jesus would first come as a "suffering servant" (Isaiah 53) and then later come as victorious King (Matthew 24:29-31).

In Mark 2:10 Jesus said the "Son of man" had the power to forgive sins and demonstrated it by healing one sick with the palsy. (Jews equated affliction with sin of the person or his parents). Jesus in the temple (Matthew 12) proclaimed the he "the Son of man" was greater than the temple and that He was "Lord of the Sabbath." This appears to be an obvious reference to being Messiah. So the Jewish religious leaders of the day knew exactly what he meant. They heard him prophesy that the "Son of man" would die raise again the three days later (Matt 17:22-23; 20:18-19; Mark 8:31; Mark 9:31; Mark 10:32-32). Jesus even told them he would rebuild the "temple" in three days. They clearly understood what Jesus said. (Mark 14:58; Mark 15:29)They even had guard posted at the tomb after Jesus was buried to assure that no one would take Jesus body so his followers could claim he resurrected (Mat 27:62-28:15) and then created a story about his disciples stealing the body.

Jesus asked his disciples "who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" Of course Peter answered "Thou art the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Living God! So his disciple understood who he was claiming to be Messiah.

The "Son of man" in the New Testament appears to be a clear reference to Messiah. It also has a the secondary meaning of showing the "incarnation" that God became flesh (fully human) (1 Timothy 3:16) "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

[Paul Cowan]

This appears to be an obvious reference to being Messiah. So the Jewish religious leaders of the day knew exactly what he meant. They heard him prophesy that the "Son of man" would die raise again the three days later (Matt 17:22-23; 20:18-19; Mark 8:31; Mark 9:31; Mark 10:32-32). Jesus even told them he would rebuild the "temple" in three days. They clearly understood what Jesus said.

If the Sanhedrin knew this then why did they wait so long to arrest Him and take Him to trial and also look for witnesses to accuse Him? If they heard it from Him first hand and understood what He was saying, they would not have waited. Also, Peter was praised for the Holy Spirit working through him to acknowledge He was the Messiah. So if Peter had to have the Holy Spirit reveal it to him, then the Sanhedrin must not have and did NOT understand who He was He was saying He was.

Or so it seems to me.
Paul

[Ben Johnson]

If anyone is thinking about Daniel 7:13, the Aramaic is "Bar 'Enosh." The Hebrew would be "Ben Enosh," "Enosh" being an old Hebrew word for "'Ish," which means man, while "'Ishah" means woman. Adam was an "'Ish," while Eve (Hebrew: Chava) was an "'Ishah." The phrase means "Son of man." I think Jesus liked that phrase because He took on humanity, but that is just my opinion.

[Herman Blaydoe]

If the Sanhedrin knew this then why did they wait so long to arrest Him and take Him to trial and also look for witnesses to accuse Him?
Because it wasn't God's time yet.

If they heard it from Him first hand and understood what He was saying, they would not have waited.
They did try several times, but Jesus "disappeared" or "walked out" without them being able to do anything. Often this was because they feared what the crowd would do since Christ was so popular. Arresting him at that time in that place could have sparked a riot. Their hold on the people was tenuous at best.

Also, Peter was praised for the Holy Spirit working through him to acknowledge He was the Messiah. So if Peter had to have the Holy Spirit reveal it to him, then the Sanhedrin must not have and did NOT understand who He was He was saying He was.
Um, well, not quite. What Peter said he believed to be TRUTH, revealed by the Holy Spirit. What the Sanhedrin heard from Christ they believed to be FALSE because they did not want to deal with the truth. It was not a case of understanding, but the will to accept or reject the Truth. Peter accepted it, the Sanhedrin rejected it, that does not mean they did not know exactly what He was saying.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Or so it seems to me.
Paul[/QUOTE]

[Owen Jones]

Son of Man seems to me to be a common Jewish term at the time that is rich with meaning, not something that can be easily pinned down however. But I assume has strong messianic overtones. Let's not forget that Jesus had either instructed his disciples to or permitted them to carry side arms to defend him against arrest or any type of physical attacks up to Holy Thursday.

[David Franklin]

John 1:29,35 John the Baptist publically declared the Jesus was the Messiah and Andrew clearly believed and told his brother Simon (Peter).

40 Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus.

John 2:23-24 Many believed he was the Messiah in His early ministry. Jesus name is Yeshua “God is Salvation”
23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.

John 4:39-42 Samaritan’s believed he was the Messiah
39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41 And because of his words many more became believers.
42 They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”
John 7: 25-32 The Jewish Leaders really wanted to arrest Jesus but they feared the people.
25 At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, “Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill? 26 Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Messiah? 27 But we know where this man is from; when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from.”
28 Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29 but I know him because I am from him and he sent me.”
30 At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. 31 Still, many in the crowd believed in him. They said, “When the Messiah comes, will he perform more signs than this man?”
32 The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him.
Even so many Pharisees, Jewish leaders and members of the Sanhedrin believed and became followers of Christ.
John 10:22-33 The Jews tried to get him to say he was the Messiah as many of His followers already believed. Jesus claims to be God and Jews take up stones to kill Him.
22 Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
John 11:45-53 After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead the Sanhedrin determined to have Jesus killed.
45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”
49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

John 12:42 Even with all of this many of the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin believed in Jesus.

42 Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved human praise more than praise from God.

John 3:1-3 Nicodemas a Pharisee and a member of Sanhedrin believed on Jesus

1 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Mark 15:42-43 Joseph of Arimathea was a Pharisee and a Noble Counselor on the Sanhedrin, was secret believer.
42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.
John 19:38
38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away.
Luke 4:28-30 The Jews tried to push him off a cliff
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

John 8:57-59 The Jews tried to stone Him to death on several occasions when He claimed to be God.
Here is one where He claimed to YHWH (Jehovah = I AM)
57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

John 10:17-18 No one could touch Jesus’ life until the Father allowed it.
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

[Benjamin Martin]

I do not understand the title, Son of Man. I would appreciate some explanation(s) what it means. Thank you.

Hello Laura

The phrase Son of man is an idiom for it carries a connotation of semitic characteristic language in common literary device. The phrase denotes character in the comparsion between Son and man which portray a future human who has a gentic-offsprings in mankind. The Son of man indicate his humanity by the word man using association with the plurality of birds having nests and foxes having holes but if you follow me the Son of man don't have a home or place to sleep (Matthew 8:20). Also, another reference to the Son of man indicate his humanity by the word man using association with man was not created for the sabbath and the sabbath was created for man (Mark 2:27,28).