Son of Man

“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 to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom.”

— Daniel 7:13-14 (ESV)

Son of Man is the title Jesus used of himself more than any other, drawn from Daniel 7:13-14’s vision of a heavenly figure given everlasting dominion by the Ancient of Days.¹ Applied to an Old Testament prophet or to humanity generally, the phrase can mean nothing more than “a mortal, a human being”; on Jesus’s own lips it joined that same plain humanity to Daniel’s apocalyptic figure, letting him claim final authority and coming glory while also standing alongside those he came to save.²

Confessional Witness

No Reformed confession, including the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession, addresses “Son of Man” as a title in its own right; the term belongs to biblical theology rather than confessional vocabulary. The confessional ground the title rests on is the wider affirmation of Christ’s real humanity: the 1689 states that the Son “did … take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin,” so that “two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person … which person is very God and very man.”³ That affirmation, not a chapter on this specific title, is what the ancient denials of Christ’s humanity were judged against.

Biblical Basis

In the Old Testament, “son of man” ordinarily marks out plain humanity. Psalm 8:4 sets it in parallel with “man” itself, asking what either is that God should be mindful of them. Ezekiel is repeatedly addressed as “son of man,” always as a mortal receiving a word from the Lord, never as a title he claims for himself.¹ Daniel 7:13-14 stands apart from both: “one like a son of man” comes with the clouds of heaven, is presented before the Ancient of Days, and receives “dominion and glory and a kingdom” over every people and nation, prerogatives the Old Testament elsewhere reserves to God alone.¹

The New Testament’s usage is concentrated almost entirely in Jesus’s own mouth. Berkhof counts more than forty occasions on which Jesus applies the name to himself, against a single indirect quotation of his usage by the crowd (John 12:34) and three further occurrences outside the Gospels altogether (Acts 7:56; Rev. 1:13, 14:14).¹ The title carries the Daniel 7 background directly into Jesus’s own claims: he tells the paralytic’s onlookers that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2:10), and declares himself “lord even of the Sabbath” as the Son of Man (Mark 2:27-28). The allusion to Daniel is clearest at his trial, when, asked directly whether he is the Christ, he answers, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62), words the high priest treats as blasphemy precisely because they claim Daniel’s divine prerogative for himself.

Historical Development

From Daniel’s vision to Jesus’s chosen self-designation

By the time of the New Testament, Daniel 7:13’s “one like a son of man” had already been read in Jewish apocalyptic literature, including 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra (2 Esdras), as a name for the coming Messiah.² Bavinck holds that Jesus took over this loaded term deliberately: by calling himself the Son of Man, he distinguished himself from and set himself above every other human being while at the same time insisting that he was truly human, one with Israel and with the whole human race. The name let Jesus forestall in advance the nationalistic misreading of Messiahship that “Son of David” alone would have invited, and to work into it, gradually, the truth that the Christ “had to suffer many things and after that enter his glory.”²

Berkhof records the historical debate over why Jesus preferred this title above the more obviously messianic ones available to him. The name was once widely read as a cryptic title, meant to veil rather than reveal his Messiahship; Dalman revived that reading, treating it as “an intentional veiling of the Messianic character under a title which affirms the humanity of Him who bore it.”¹ Vos, in his study of Jesus’s self-disclosure, judged the evidence for that veiling thesis doubtful, and proposed instead that Jesus preferred the name because it stood “farthest removed from every possible Jewish prostitution of the Messianic office”: calling himself the Son of Man let him impart to his Messiahship “His own heaven-centered spirit,” lifting his person and work to a height his own followers only later felt able to name directly.¹

Opposing Views

Three ancient positions each denied, in a different way, the full humanity the title affirms:

Docetism. Held that Christ only appeared to have a real human body, his humanity being an illusion rather than a genuine nature.⁴ (See Docetism.)

Apollinarianism. Held that Christ possessed a real human body but not a complete human nature, the divine Logos taking the place of a human rational soul or mind.⁴ (See Apollinarianism.)

Gnosticism. Denied outright the reality, not merely the completeness, of Christ’s human nature, treating matter itself as unfit for the divine to assume.⁴ (See Gnosticism.)

Berkhof answers all three with the same evidence: Scripture calls Jesus “man” and shows him possessing a real body and a rational soul, subject to ordinary human growth, want, and suffering, and “the most common self-designation of Jesus, ‘the Son of Man,’ whatever connotation it may have, certainly also indicates the veritable humanity of Jesus.”⁴

Related Doctrines

References

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1969), 297: “In the Old Testament this name is found in Ps. 8:4; Dan. 7:13, and frequently in the Prophecy of Ezekiel. It is also found in the Apochrypha, Enoch 46 and 62, and II Esdras 13…. It was the most common self-designation of Jesus. He applied the name to Himself on more than forty occasions, while others all but refrained from employing it. The only exception in the Gospels is in John 12:34 …; and in the rest of the New Testament only Stephen and John employ it, Acts 7:56; Rev. 1:13; 14:14.” On Dalman and Vos, 297-298: Dalman regarded the title as “an intentional veiling of the Messianic character under a title which affirms the humanity of Him who bore it,” while Vos held “that Jesus probably preferred the name, because it stood farthest removed from every possible Jewish prostitution of the Messianic office. By calling Himself the Son of Man, Jesus imparted to the Messiahship His own heaven-centered spirit.” ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Abridged in One Volume, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), chap. 14, “The Only Begotten Son of the Father”: “He, accordingly, called himself the Son of Man…. The term ‘Son of Man’ was unusual; it was reminiscent of Daniel 7:13, and understood in the apocalyptic literature of that time (1 Enoch and 4 Ezra [2 Esdras]) as a reference to the Messiah. In using this name, Jesus intends to distinguish himself from and position himself above all other humans while at the same time implying that he was truly human…. This meaning comes down to the fact that the Christ, who came from above, had to suffer many things and after that enter his glory.” ↩ ↩² ↩³
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689), chap. 8, “Of Christ the Mediator,” para. 2: “did … take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin … so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man.” ↩
Berkhof, 301-302: “There has been a time, when the reality (Gnosticism) and the natural integrity (Docetism, Apollinarianism) of the human nature of Christ was denied…. Jesus called Himself man, and is so called by others, John 8:40; Acts 2:22; Rom. 5:15; I Cor. 15:21. The most common self-designation of Jesus, ‘the Son of Man,’ whatever connotation it may have, certainly also indicates the veritable humanity of Jesus…. The Bible clearly indicates that Jesus possessed the essential elements of human nature, that is, a material body and a rational soul.” ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴