Literature: There is an enormous literature on the Son of Man. For surveys see M. Black, “The Son of Man in Recent Research and Debate,” BJRL 45 (1962–63), 305–18; I. H. Marshall, “The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion,” NTS 12 (1966), 327–51; R. Marlow, “The Son of Man in Recent Journal Literature,” CBQ 28 (1966), 20–30; M. Black, “The Son of Man Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition,” ZNTW 60 (1968), 1–8; A. J. B. Higgins, “Is the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?” in Neotestamentica et Semitica, ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (1969), 70–87; J. N. Birdsall, “Who Is This Son of Man?” EQ 42 (1970), 7–17; I. H. Marshall, “The Son of Man in Contemporary Debate,” EQ 42 (1970), 67–87; G. Vermes, “The Present State of the ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” JJS 29 (1978), 123–34; J. A. Fitzmyer, “The NT Title ‘Son of Man’ Philologically Considered,” A Wandering Aramean (1979), 143–60; M. Hooker, “Is the Son of Man Problem Really Insolvable?” Text and Interpretation (1979), 155–68; J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (1980), 65–97; C. Tuckett, “Recent Work on the Son of Man,” SB 12 (1981), 14–18; B. Lindars, “The New Look on the Son of Man,” BJRL 63 (1981), 437–62; W. O. Walker, “The Son of Man: Some Recent Developments,” CBQ 45 (1983), 584–607; R. Fuller, “The Son of Man: A Reconsideration,” in The Living Text, ed. D. Groh and R. Jewett (1985), 207–17; D. Jackson, “A Survey of the 1967–1981 Study of the Son of Man,” ResQ 28 (1985–86), 67–78; R. Donahue, “Recent Studies on the ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospels,” CBQ 48 (1986), 484–98; I. H. Marshall, The Origins of NT Christology (1990), 63–82.
For studies see: G. Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (1926, 1954), 227–54; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1945), 210–33; V. Taylor, “The Son of Man Sayings Relating to the Parousia,” ET 58 (1946–47), 12–15; W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah (1946), 158–68, 237–49; M. Black, “The ‘Son of Man’ in the Teaching of Jesus,” ET 60 (1948–49), 32–36; V. Taylor, The Names of Jesus (1953), 25–35; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (1956), 346–450; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the NT (1959), 137–92; E. Schweizer, “The Son of Man,” JBL 79 (1960), 119–29; idem, “The Son of Man Again,” NTS 9 (1963), 256–61; H. M. Teeple, “The Origin of the Son of Man Christology,” JBL 84 (1965), 213–50; H. E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (1965); M. D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark (1967); N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (1967), 164–99; F. H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (1967); R. Maddox, “The Function of the Son of Man according to the Synoptic Gospels,” NTS 15 (1968), 45–74; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (1969), 15–67; R. N. Longenecker, “Displacement of Son of Man,” The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (1970), 82–92; J. Jeremias, NT Theology (1971); R. Leivestad, “Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 18 (1972), 243–67; R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man (1973); B. Lindars, “Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 22 (1975), 52–72; A. J. B. Higgins, The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus (1980); H. Gese, “Wisdom, Son of Man, and the Origins of Christology: The Consistent Development of Biblical Theology,” HorBT 3 (1981), 23–57; I. H. Marshall, “The Son of Man and the Incarnation,” Ex Auditu 7 (1981), 29–43; C. Tuckett, “The Present Son of Man,” JSNT 14 (1982), 58–81; F. F. Bruce, “The Background to the Son of Man Sayings,” in Christ the Lord, ed. H. Rowdon (1982), 50–70; B. Lindars, Jesus, Son of Man (1983); S. Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’ ” as the Son of God (1983); R. Bauckham, “The Son of Man: ‘A Man in My Position’ or ‘Someone’?” JSNT 23 (1985), 23–33; W. Horbury, “The Messianic Association of ‘Son of Man’,” JTS 36 (1985), 34–55; C. C. Caragounis, The Son of Man (1986); A. Y. Collins, “The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as the ‘Son of Man,’ ” HTR 80 (1987), 391–407; D. R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (1990).
Theologically, one of the most important messianic designations in the Synoptic Gospels is the Son of Man. Three facts are of superlative importance. In the gospel tradition the Son of Man was Jesus’ favorite way of designating himself; in fact, it is the only title he freely used. Second, the title is never used by anyone else to designate Jesus. Third, there is no evidence in Acts or the epistles that the early church called Jesus the Son of Man. The only appearance of the title outside the Gospels is in the vision of Stephen (Acts 7:56). The Gospels place it on the lips of Jesus over sixty-five times. It is a striking thing that the title never became a messianic designation for Jesus in the early church.
The church fathers understood the phrase to refer primarily to the humanity of the incarnate Son of God. Jesus was the God-man, the Son of God and Son of Man. Many of the older discussions and commentaries assume this theological meaning of the phrase and interpret it to refer primarily to Jesus’ humanity and his identity with human beings. This interpretation is in error because it neglects the historical background and significance of the expression.
One objection to the gospel portrait is that Jesus could never have applied this title to himself because the title does not exist in Aramaic—Jesus’ mother tongue—and for linguistic reasons is an impossible term. It is true that the Greek expression ho huios tou anthrōpou is intolerable Greek and is a literal translation of the Aramaic bar ’anāšā’. This idiom could mean nothing more than “man.” This is clear from the Old Testament. “God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent” (Num. 23:19). “O LORD, what is man that thou dost regard him, or the son of man that thou dost think of him?” (Ps. 144:3). This argument has been carefully examined by Dalman, who has concluded that while it was not a common title, it could be used as a messianic designation in the elevated diction of poetry and prophecy.
It is indeed strange, if the linguistic argument holds any weight, that the expression is never used elsewhere in the Gospels as a periphrasis for humanity, an argument that is especially forceful in view of the fact that the plural, “the sons of men,” does occur in Mark 3:28. Dalman’s conclusion that “Son of Man” could be a messianic title has been widely accepted in contemporary biblical scholarship.
A further objection has been raised that “Son of Man” on the lips of Jesus is nothing but a substitute for the first person pronoun and therefore means no more than “I.” A few places occur that suggest such a usage (cf. Mt. 5:11 with Lk. 6:22); but again Dalman has pointed out that it was not a general custom among the Jews to speak of one’s self in the third person, and if Jesus had done so, the term he employed for that purpose was so uncommon as to require a special explanation.
The way in which a common expression can become a technical title may be illustrated in modern times by the German “Der Führer.” The word means simply the leader, guide, conductor, director; but as applied to Hitler, it becomes the technical designation of the head of the German Reich.
Several questions must be discussed in connection with the title “Son of Man.” What connotations did it have for Jesus’ contemporaries? This is a very important consideration, for it should be obvious that Jesus would not employ a designation without regard to the significance and overtones of meaning it conveyed for his hearers. Second, how did Jesus use the title? And finally, what content did he pour into the expression? What meaning did he seek to convey?
The Background of “Son of Man”
We have already seen that “son of man” is not an uncommon idiom in the Old Testament, simply designating humanity. This usage has frequently been appealed to, to explain some of the gospel idioms. The expression occurs in the book of Ezekiel as the particular name by which God addresses the prophet. Some interpreters have found the background for Jesus’ usage in Ezekiel.8 However, this quite fails to explain the eschatological use of “Son of Man” in the Gospels.
The probable Old Testament background is the vision of Daniel, where he sees four fierce beasts arise successively out of the sea. These symbolize four successive world empires. Afterwards “I saw … 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 kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Dan. 7:13–14). In the following verses, which interpret this vision, the one like a son of man is not mentioned. In his place are “the saints of the Most High” (Dan. 7:22), who are first oppressed and afflicted by the fourth beast, but who receive an everlasting kingdom and rule over all the earth (Dan. 7:21–27).
One thing is clear. In Daniel the idiom “son of man” is less than a messianic title. It is a form resembling a human being in contrast to the four beasts who have already appeared in the visions. Beyond this, interpretations differ particularly at three points: Is the one like a son of man to be understood as an individual person, or is he only a symbol representing the saints of the Most High? Does the one like a son of man come to earth, or is his “coming” only to the presence of God? Is the one like a son of man only a heavenly figure or does he combine suffering with vindication? That the one like a son of man is identified with and represents the saints is clear; but this does not negate the possibility that he is also an individual personage.10 While the text does not affirm that the humanlike figure comes to earth, it seems to be clearly implied. He does indeed come into the presence of God with clouds, but when the kingdom is given to the saints to reign over all the dominions on earth, we may assume that this happens because the humanlike figure who has received the kingdom in heaven brings it to the saints on earth.
While many scholars feel that the Danielic figure combines suffering and vindication because the saints are first oppressed and later vindicated, this is not at all clear; for the saints suffer on earth while the son of man receives the kingdom in heaven, and then presumably brings it to the afflicted saints on earth.12 We conclude that the Danielic son of man is a heavenly messianic eschatological figure who brings the kingdom to the afflicted saints on earth.
In the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71), the Son of Man has become a messianic title of a pre-existent heavenly figure who descends to earth to sit upon the throne of judgment to destroy the wicked of the earth, to deliver the righteous, and to reign in a kingdom of glory when the righteous will be clothed with garments of glory and of life and enter into a blessed fellowship with the Son of Man forever.
It is not altogether clear what use can be made of this heavenly Son of Man for New Testament backgrounds. Enoch obviously consists of five parts, and fragments of four parts have been found among the Qumran writings, but no fragments of the Similitudes have been found. This has led many scholars to the conclusion that the Similitudes cannot be pre-Christian and cannot be used for interpreting the New Testament concept of the Son of Man. While this is persuasive, it seems impossible to accept the Similitudes as a Jewish Christian writing, for it lacks entirely all Christian features.15 Therefore we must conclude that while the date of the Similitudes is later than the rest of Enoch, it is a Jewish writing that reflects how certain Jewish circles interpreted the Danielic son of man in New Testament times. There is, however, no evidence that Jesus knew the Similitudes. At best, we can use it only to understand contemporary Jewish thinking in which the Son of Man has become a messianic title for a pre-existent heavenly being who comes to earth with the glorious Kingdom of God.*
“Son of Man” in the Synoptic Gospels
The use of “Son of Man” in the Synoptics falls into three distinct categories: the Son of Man on earth serving; the Son of Man in suffering and death; the Son of Man in eschatological glory.
A. The Earthly Son of Man
Mk. 2:10 = Mt. 9:6 = Lk. 5:24.
Authority to forgive sins.
Mk. 2:27 = Mt. 12:8 = Lk. 6:5.
Lord of the Sabbath.
Mt. 11:19 = Lk. 7:34.
The Son of Man has come eating and drinking.
Mt. 8:20 = Lk. 9:58.
The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.
Mt. 12:32 = Lk. 12:10.
A word against the Son of Man will be forgiven.
[Mt. 16:13] (Mk. 8:28 omits).
Who do they say that the Son of Man is?
Mt. 13:37.
The Son of Man sows the good seed.
[Lk. 6:22] (Mt. 5:11 omits).
Persecution on account of the Son of Man.
Lk. 19:10.
The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost.
Lk. 22:48.
Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?
B. The Suffering Son of Man
Mk. 8:31 = Lk. 9:22 (Mt. 16:21 omits).
The Son of Man must suffer.
Mk. 9:12 = Mt. 17:12.
The Son of Man will suffer.
Mk. 9:9 = Mt. 17:9.
The Son of Man risen from the dead.
Mk. 9:31 = Mt. 17:22 = Lk. 9:44.
The Son of Man delivered into human hands.
Mk. 10:33 = Mt. 20:18 = Lk. 18:31.
The Son of Man delivered to chief priests, condemned to death, rises again.
Mk. 10:45 = Mt. 20:28.
The Son of Man came to serve and give his life.
Mk. 14:21 = Mt. 26:24 = Lk. 22:22.
The Son of Man goes as written but woe to the betrayer.
Mk. 14:41 = Mt. 26:45.
The Son of Man is betrayed to sinners.
Mt. 12:40 = Lk. 11:30.
The Son of Man will be three days in the earth.
C. The Apocalyptic Son of Man
Mk. 8:38 = Mt. 16:27 = Lk. 9:26.
When he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Mk. 13:26 = Mt. 24:30 = Lk. 21:27.
They will see the Son of Man coming with clouds and great glory.
Mk. 14:62 = Mt. 26:64 = Lk. 22:69.
You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
Lk. 12:40 = Mt. 24:44.
The Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.
Lk. 17:24 = Mt. 24:27.
As the lightning flashes across the sky, so will be the Son of Man in his day.
Lk. 17:26 = Mt. 24:37.
As in the days of Noah, so in the days of the Son of Man.
Mt. 10:23 [This may not be apocalyptic].
You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Mt. 13:41.
The Son of Man will send his angels.
[Mt. 16:28] (Mk. 9:1).
Some will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.
Mt. 19:28.
The Son of Man shall sit on his glorious throne.
Mt. 24:30.
The powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man.…
[Mt. 24:39] (Lk. 17:27 omits).
So will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Mt. 25:31.
When the Son of Man comes in his glory.
Lk. 12:8 (Mt. 10:32 omits).
Everyone who acknowledges me before humankind, the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God.
Lk. 17:22.
You will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man.
Lk. 17:30.
So will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
Lk. 18:8.
When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?
Lk. 21:36.
Praying that you may have strength to escape all these things … and to stand before the Son of Man.
The references that are bracketed are probably editorial. Mark reports sayings of all three types; Q reports only one possible saying about suffering; Matthew’s source and Luke’s source report sayings about the earthly Son of Man and the apocalyptic Son of Man. There is a fairly wide distribution in all sources of the Gospels.
The question of whether these sayings go back to the times of Jesus or have been incorporated into the gospel tradition at various stages of its history is answered in different ways. Five major types of interpretation may be listed. (1) The “conservative” wing of scholarship, represented by Vos, Turner, Mowinckel, Cranfield, Taylor, Cullmann, Maddox, and Marshall accept all three types, if not all the particular sayings, as coming from Jesus and representing his own mind. (2) The position of A. Schweitzer, now supported by J. Jeremias, that only the eschatological sayings are authentic, and that Jesus expected to be the heavenly Son of Man at the imminent end of the age. (3) The view of Bultmann, followed by Bornkamm, Tödt, Hahn, and Higgins, that only the apocalyptic sayings are authentic, but Jesus was not referring to himself as the future Son of Man but to another apocalyptic figure who would judge people at the end of the age on the basis of their relationship to Jesus (Lk. 12:8). (4) Recently, a few radical scholars have rejected the authenticity of all the sayings and attributed them to the Christian community. See Teeple and Perrin. (5) A few scholars, primarily E. Schweizer, argue for the authenticity of the sayings about the earthly Jesus, but are skeptical about the present form of the other two groups. Schweizer does accept the authenticity of a few apocalyptic sayings, but interprets them in terms of exaltation. Jesus expected God to exalt him out of his sufferings and humiliation and to witness for or against those who appear before the throne of God in the last judgment. M. Black has expressed approval of Schweizer’s view.
Dogmatic considerations influence the judgment of scholars in their evaluation of the Son of Man sayings. It is clear that a given scholar’s understanding of the nature of history will help determine what he or she decides could have been true about Jesus. “The decisive issue at stake in the Son of Man problem is not the authenticity of one group of sayings against the others, but the question of the nature of history.” Modern scholarship recognizes that the gospel portrait of Jesus is that of a man with a transcendent self-consciousness, who, the early church believed, had claimed that he would be the eschatological Son of Man in the day of judgment. However, “history” is the story of human beings, not of divine men. History has no room for the category of incarnate deity. Therefore, the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels must be a community product—the creation of Christian faith.
A somewhat different approach to the same question is seen in those scholars who are sure that Jesus could not have claimed to be the eschatological Son of Man, for this is a claim that no sane or good person could make. Furthermore, the use of the title “Son of Man” for his earthly ministry involves an explicit claim that few scholars have noted; it involves the claim to be a pre-existent heavenly kind of messiah who has unexpectedly appeared as a man among humankind. Teeple has recognized this significance of “Son of Man”: “If Jesus believed that he already in his present career was the Son of Man, he would have to take equally improbable steps in his thinking. He would have to believe that he himself had existed in heaven as the Son of Man from the beginning of time, had descended to earth, would ascend to heaven again and would return to earth again.” The very statement that such a belief on the part of Jesus is “improbable” reflects presuppositions about what could and could not be true in history.
Another factor influencing scholarly judgment is the insistence upon a formal consistency. If one set of sayings is authentic, this ipso facto excludes the authenticity of another group. “If the Son of Man can only mean the supraterrestrial transcendent Messiah … then we cannot explain how Jesus already in the present could claim for himself the predicate and rights of the Son of Man.” That the ideas of an apocalyptic and an earthly Son of Man are not necessarily mutually exclusive is proven by the fact that these two concepts are brought together in the Gospels. There is therefore no a priori reason why they might not have been brought together in the mind of Jesus. The idea that the Son of Man might be an eschatological figure other than Jesus—the prevailing view in German theology—is exceedingly difficult because there is no scrap of evidence that Jesus expected one greater than himself to come, but there is much evidence to the contrary.
We maintain that the one solid critical position is the fact that in all our New Testament sources, Jesus and Jesus alone used the term “Son of Man” to designate himself. Form critics emphasize the criterion of dissimilarity; i.e., only those sayings can be surely reckoned authentic which have no parallel either in Judaism or in the early church. If this principle is applied to the Son of Man sayings, the idea that the Son of Man would appear on earth in humiliation to suffer and die has no parallel in Judaism or in the early church. The church often spoke of the sufferings of the Christ or of Jesus Christ, but never of the Son of Man. The fact that the Son of Man appears only in Jesus’ own words, “seems to prove conclusively that the title Son of Man must have been truly and incontestably Jesus’ own designation of himself.”26 This is bedrock, although the majority of critics, including Bornkamm, fail to recognize the force of it. If Jesus did speak of himself as the Son of Man in his earthly activity, then the only compelling argument against the authenticity of the eschatological sayings is their alleged incompatibility with the earthly sayings. Furthermore, it fits the criterion of dissimilarity to apply the idea of an eschatological Son of Man to one already on earth in humiliation.28 There is, therefore, good critical reason for an open-minded inductive approach to accept all three classes of sayings as authentic.
The Earthly Son of Man
There is a pattern that can be detected in Mark’s Gospel. Caesarea Philippi and Peter’s recognition of Jesus’ messiahship marks a turning point in Jesus’ self-disclosure to his disciples. Before Caesarea Philippi, he had spoken of himself only as the earthly Son of Man. After Caesarea Philippi, two new notes are introduced: the Son of Man must suffer and die, but afterward he would come as the eschatological Son of Man to judge and to rule in the eschatological Kingdom of God.
Mark records two uses of the title early in Jesus’ ministry. When criticized for forgiving the sins of the paralytic, Jesus said, “… the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk. 2:10). The expression in this saying has often been interpreted as a synonym for humankind and not as a messianic title, but in the context this is hardly possible. It must remain the prerogative of God rather than human beings to forgive sins. Indeed, Jesus was here accused of blasphemy since God alone could forgive sins (v. 7). Jesus as Son of Man here claims the authority to forgive sins. Furthermore, the expression “on earth” cannot be overlooked. A contrast between heaven and earth is involved, but the contrast may not be between the divine prerogative exercised in heaven as against Jesus’ authority on earth. The contrast may suggest rather two spheres of Jesus’ authority. As the heavenly Son of Man he possesses this authority; now he has brought that authority to earth and is exercising it among human beings.
Jesus contrasted his own conduct with that of John the Baptist. John came as an ascetic; Jesus, on the other hand, as the Son of Man came as a normal human being, eating and drinking (Mt. 11:19 = Lk. 7:34).
Again, Jesus was condemned by the Pharisees for failing to observe the traditions of the scribes with reference to sabbath keeping. Defending his conduct, Jesus said, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath” (Mk. 2:27, 28). Whatever this saying involves, it cannot suggest that humankind as such is sovereign over the Sabbath and therefore each person can make his or her own regulations for sabbath keeping. Jesus claims authority as the Son of Man to interpret the scribal regulations concerning the Sabbath. The principle here employed is that the Sabbath is not an end in itself but was made for human beings. In this context, the title “Son of Man” involves certain implications with reference to Jesus’ human nature. Jesus’ messianic office involves participation in human nature; and whatever concerns humankind as such therefore falls under the authority of the Son of Man. It is quite impossible that Jesus could have considered that humanity as such was sovereign over the Sabbath. It is further significant that Jesus said that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. The authority that the Son of Man possesses is manifested at this particular point, even to the extent of reaching to the Sabbath.
In speaking of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Jesus associated himself with the power that was at work in his person. One may speak against the Son of Man and be forgiven; but when a person is so spiritually blind as to be unable to distinguish between the Spirit of God and satanic power and therefore attributes the power at work in Jesus to the devil, that person has reached a state of obduracy that can never be forgiven (Mt. 12:31–32). Jesus did not mean here to contrast his own work as the Son of Man with that of the Holy Spirit; he describes rather two stages in the progressive darkening of people’s hearts. They might speak a word against Jesus, the Son of Man, and yet be forgiven. Jesus recognized that his messianic role was such that it was easy for people to take offense at him (Mt. 11:6). But when one goes beyond the point of speaking against Jesus to that of asserting that Jesus’ messianic power is of satanic origin, that person is beyond salvation.
Another saying that is very difficult to place chronologically is best understood in terms of messianic dignity. To a scribe who would follow him Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head” (Mt. 8:20; Lk. 9:58). This saying is quite colorless if “Son of Man” is only a synonym for “I”; but when the heavenly connotations in the title are recognized, this saying is filled with significance. “I who possess the messianic dignity of the Son of Man am subjected to a life of humiliation that is not in keeping with the dignity of the Son of Man.”
The consciousness of messianic mission is reflected in the saying, “The Son of man came to seek and to save the lost” (Lk. 19:10).
All of these earthly sayings would be perplexing to Jesus’ Jewish hearers. Whether or not the Similitudes of Enoch represent current Jewish thought, they did know Daniel’s vision of one like a son of man, and if Jesus used this title to designate himself in his earthly ministry, it embodies an implicit claim to be a heavenly, pre-existent, manlike being. In this context, the use of the title embodied an amazing claim, amounting to a claim to deity. It was at the same time an unheard-of thing that the Son of Man should appear on earth as a man among human beings. How Jesus could be the heavenly Son of Man in humility and lowliness, and at the same time the heavenly, pre-existent Man was the essence of the messianic secret.
The Suffering Son of Man
Once the disciples have become convinced that Jesus was in some real sense the Messiah who was fulfilling the prophetic hope of Israel, Jesus began to sound a new note: “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mk. 8:32). It was for this idea that the Son of Man must die that Peter rebuked him; the idea of a dying Son of Man or Messiah was incredible and a contradiction in terms.
This raises another question about contemporary Jewish expectations: Had any conflation occurred between the concepts of the messianic Son of Man and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53? It is clear that Judaism sometimes interpreted this great prophecy messianically. It is of little relevance to us what Isaiah 53 meant in its own historical context; we are only concerned about the way the Jews understood it. Jeremias has argued that the idea of a suffering Messiah can be traced back to pre-Christian times. However, when in Judaism the Messiah suffers it is not in an atoning death but in conflict with his enemies.35 It is true that the Son of Man in Enoch shares certain characteristics with the Servant of Isaiah 53, but the important characteristic—that of vicarious suffering—is completely lacking in Enoch.37 Therefore we must agree with those scholars who cannot find any conflation of the Messiah and Suffering Servant in pre-Christian Judaism.
After the initial announcement, Mark records that Jesus told his disciples repeatedly that he must be delivered up into human hands and be put to death. Jesus spoke of his death in terms of the Son of Man, not Messiah; but this only intensified the problem for the disciples. If the Messiah is a Davidic king who destroys his enemies with the breath of his mouth, the Son of Man is a heavenly, supernatural being. How could such a one possibly die?
The most vivid statement about his death is found in Mark 10:45, which states that it is his messianic mission as the Son of Man to die for humanity. “The Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45). “Here we hear the central theme of the ebed Yahweh hymns, and this is a clear allusion to Isa. 53:5.… Jesus consciously united in his person the two central concepts of the Jewish faith, barnasha and ebed Yahweh.” The idea of ransom (lytron) alludes to the offering for sin in Isaiah 53:10, and the phrase “for many” looks like an echo of the repeated “many” in Isaiah 53:11f. This has been the widely accepted “conservative” view of Jesus’ use of “Son of Man.” He took over a term that appears in Daniel but that was not widely used in contemporary Jewish hopes, but radically reinterpreted it. The Son of Man is not only a heavenly, pre-existent being; he appears in weakness and humility as a man among human beings to fulfill a destiny of suffering and death. In other words, Jesus poured the content of the Suffering Servant into the Son of Man concept.41
The Apocalyptic Son of Man
At the same time that Jesus announced his suffering, he announced his coming in glory. After Caesarea Philippi, predictions of his glorious coming as the Son of Man occur with relative frequency. This idea would be familiar enough to his hearers, for they knew the prophecy of Daniel. But the idea that the heavenly Son of Man should first live as a man among human beings and submit to suffering and death was an utterly novel idea.
Perhaps the most vivid of the apocalyptic sayings is one already discussed—Jesus’ answer to the question of the High Priest as to whether he was the Messiah, the Son of God. Whether Jesus answered, “I am” (Mk. 14:62), or “You say that I am” (Mt. 26:64), the result is the same. He immediately defines what he means by his claim to messiahship: “You will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Jesus is the Messiah, but a heavenly Son of Man kind of Messiah, not an earthly Davidic king. Jesus said, in effect, to his accusers that the day would come when the situation would be reversed. Now he was standing before their tribunal being tried. The day would come when they—his judges—would stand before his tribunal, and he, the heavenly Son of Man, would fill the role of eschatological judge.
Ever since Glasson’s study The Second Advent, many scholars have accepted his suggestion that Jesus in his answer to the priest speaks not of a coming to earth but only of an exaltation and a coming to the presence of God. However, it is difficult to avoid the argument about the order of the words. The coming follows the sitting.44 The saying combines exaltation (sitting) and parousia (coming).
Conclusion
We may conclude, then, that by the use of the term “Son of Man,” interpreted in the light of its historical and religious background, Jesus laid claim both to messianic dignity and to a messianic role. In fact, the claim involved implicitly more than mere messianic dignity, for it carried overtones of essential supernatural character and origin. He did not call himself the Messiah, because his mission was utterly different from that connoted to the popular mind by this messianic term. He called himself the Son of Man because this title made an exalted claim and yet at the same time permitted Jesus to fill the term with new meaning. This he did by coupling the role of the “Son of Man” with that of the Suffering Servant. Once the disciples were convinced that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, although a Messiah of a novel sort, he instructed them in the larger aspects of the destiny of the Son of Man. He was first to suffer and die, and then he would come in glory as Daniel 7 prophesied to inaugurate the Kingdom of God with power and glory. By the term “Son of Man,” Jesus laid claim to heavenly dignity and probably to pre-existence itself and claimed to be the one who would one day inaugurate the glorious Kingdom. But in order to accomplish this, the Son of Man must become the Suffering Servant and submit to death.
Jesus’ teachings about the Son of Man and the Kingdom of God are closely analogous in certain aspects of their structure. We have seen that the Kingdom of God is the perfect realization of the glorious reign of God that will be experienced only with the inauguration of the Age to Come. In advance of the manifestation of the Kingdom in glory, however, this same Kingdom of God, his kingly reign, has manifested itself among men and women in an unexpected form. The Kingdom is to work secretly among them. While the evil age continues, the Kingdom of God has begun to work quietly in a form almost unnoticed by the world. Its presence can be recognized only by those who have spiritual perception to see it. This is the mystery of the Kingdom: the divine secret that in the ministry of Jesus has for the first time been disclosed to human beings. The future apocalyptic, glorious Kingdom has come secretly to work among them in advance of its open manifestation.
So it is with the Son of Man. Jesus will be the heavenly, glorious Son of Man coming with the clouds to judge people and to bring the glorious Kingdom. However, in advance of this apocalyptic manifestation as the Son of Man, Jesus is the Son of Man living among them incognito, whose ministry is not to reign in glory but in humiliation to suffer and to die for them. The future, heavenly Son of Man is already present among women and men but in a form they hardly expected. There is indeed a messianic secret even as there is a mystery of the Kingdom of God.
By designating himself the Son of Man, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah; but by the way in which he used the term, he indicated that his messiahship was of a very different order from that which was popularly expected. The “Son of Man” permitted him to lay claim to messianic dignity but to interpret that messianic office in his own way. It was a claim, therefore, that would not be readily recognized by the people who possessed an erroneous concept of the Messiah, but that nevertheless was designed to alert those who were spiritually responsive to the actual presence of the Messiah, although in an unforeseen messianic role.
Ladd, G. E. (1993). A Theology of the New Testament. (D. A. Hagner, Ed.) (Rev. ed., pp. 143–157). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.