Scholarly views The interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has proven to be challenging.
James D. G. Dunn and separately Delbert Burkett state that it is a prime example of the limits of New Testament interpretation because after 150 years of debate, no consensus on its meaning has emerged. Ingolfsland (2001) argued that Ehrman's examples were not valid, or did not meet his own criteria. Tucker Ferda also finds the idea later Christians invented the connection between Jesus and the son of man or retrojected it into the gospels to be highly unlikely.
Dale Allison states that Jesus was distinctive for his self-identification as the son of man, finding efforts to dismiss the connection with Daniel 7 and proposals that Jesus was referring to a figure other than himself to be unsuccessful.
Jewish views In Judaism, "
son of man" denotes mankind generally, in contrast to
deity or
godhead, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (; ; ; ; , etc.) or the term "ben adam" is but a formal substitute for the personal pronoun.
In Christology – (detail) 1553,
oil on canvas, 68x62cm,
Prado Museum Madrid. Sixty-nine times in the
Synoptic Gospels, Jesus calls himself (the) "Son of man", a
Greek expression which in its
Aramaic (and
Hebrew) background could be an oblique way of indicating the speaker's own self (e.g., ), or else simply mean "someone" or "a human being" (as in , where it is a poetic variant for "man"). In the "Son of man" seems to symbolize the angels (perhaps the
archangel Michael) and/or the righteous and persecuted Jews who will be vindicated and given authority by God (; 10:13, 21; 12:1) rather than function as one individual, heavenly figure who represents the people. What is clear from the evidence is that "Son of man" did not function in pre-Christian messianic expectations as a title for a deliverer expected to come in the last times. But to the Israelites and other readers and followers of the Torah this phrase would have meaning and point to the Messiah. It was not even a sharply defined concept, with a specific content and reference. It could simply denote a member of the human race (Ps. 8:4) or be a way of pointing to a prophet's insignificance and finite dependence in the face of God's glory and infinite power. Therefore, God addresses
Ezekiel ninety-three times as "son of man".
Three contexts According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus referred to himself as "Son of man" in three contexts, each with its own circle of fairly distinct meanings. He used this self-designation of
(1) his earthly work and its (frequently) humble condition (e.g., , 28 parr.; =; =);
(2) his coming suffering, death, and resurrection (; and, above all, ; 9:31; 10:33–34 parr.);
(3) his future coming in heavenly glory to act with sovereign power at a final judgement (e.g., ; 13:26–27 parr.; =; ; see ). At the same time, the evangelists (and/or their sources) do not always seem to distinguish "Son of man" sharply from "Christ/Messiah" or "Son of God". For
Mark, the
Davidic Messiah and
Daniel's Son of man are one and the same person, and their name is Jesus. In
Mark 14:61-62, the reply that Jesus makes to the high priest's question ("Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?") conveys some glorious connotations of "the Son of God" as a figure who will come in triumph on the clouds of heaven to judge his enemies: "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". In John's Gospel, the expression gains a significant element not found in the Synoptic Gospels under any of the three meanings listed above: the "Son of man" is a personally pre-existent figure (e.g.,
John 3:13;
John 6:62). First, one does not find others ever describing, addressing, or confessing Jesus as the Son of man apart from four marginal cases (
Acts 7:56;
Rev. 1:13;
14:14;
Heb. 2:6). The last three cases deal with quotations from the
Old Testament. In the Gospels, other people address and speak about Jesus in a variety of ways, but never directly as "Son of man". According to
John 12:34, the audience of Jesus were puzzled when he referred to himself as "the Son of man". Now, if the early Church had freely created the Son of man sayings, it would be puzzling that this designation for Jesus is not found on the lips of others. The puzzle disappears once it is agreed that there is here a genuine historical recollection: only Jesus used the term, and the evangelists and their sources faithfully recorded that. Second, the Son of man sayings in which Jesus refers to his (often humble and merciful) earthly activity are attested by both
Mark (e.g.,
Mark 2:10, 28) and
Q source (=; =). The sayings dealing with the coming or
apocalyptic Son of man likewise turn up in Mark (
Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62) and in Q (e.g., =). This double strand of tradition or multiple attestation can encourage one to attribute to Jesus at least class (1) and class (3) of the Son of man sayings. Fourth, the sayings about the coming Son of man sometimes imply a certain differentiation between this figure and Jesus. Therefore, Luke reports Jesus as declaring: "Every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God" (
Luke 12:8). Matthew modifies this Q saying to read: "Every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven" (
Matt. 10:32). Apparently, Luke has preserved the original form of the saying, which indicates a certain unity of function between Jesus himself and the Son of man, but at the same time introduces some differentiation between the two figures. The differentiation makes sense once it is recognised that it recalls a turn of phrase actually used by Jesus to distinguish his present preaching from his future judging. The distinction had its point in the historical context of his ministry, but not later in the post-Easter situation where believers acknowledged the personal unity between the risen Jesus and the Son of man who would come in glory. Matthew's modification reflects precisely that shift. The absence of a clear and strong connection between the Son of man and the divine kingdom is puzzling. After all, was relevant for the functions of the Son of man, and the Danielic imagery had included God's kingdom (; 4:3; 7:27). The independence of the three classes of Son of man sayings and the separation of the kingdom sayings from the Son of man can be explained if one sees the Gospels (and the traditions behind them) accurately preserving here distinctions that genuinely went back to Jesus' actual preaching and teaching. ==Comparison to
Son of God==