Summary: This discussion explores why Jesus frequently called Himself the “Son of Man,” a title that appears throughout the Gospels and raises questions about its significance. The term is understood to reflect both Jesus’ deep connection to humanity and possible ties to prophecies that speak to His divine authority and role in redemption.
In the Gospels, we often see Jesus referring to Himself as the “Son of Man,” a title that sparks curiosity and invites deeper reflection. This term appears numerous times, especially in the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and is unique because Jesus alone uses it to describe Himself. But what does “Son of Man” truly mean, and why would Jesus choose this phrase rather than titles like “Messiah” or “Son of God”?
The Bible presents multiple layers of meaning for the phrase. Some suggest it highlights Jesus’ connection to humanity, while others see links to ancient prophecies, such as those in the book of Daniel, where a “Son of Man” appears with authority and glory. This duality—relating to both His human experience and His divine role—adds depth to Jesus’ mission and message.
As we reflect on this title, it raises a compelling question: What do you believe Jesus intended to reveal by calling Himself the “Son of Man”? You can delve further into this topic with insights from this article:
There is little scholarly doubt that “Son of Man” in the Gospels arises out of the vision in Daniel 7 (“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.”). This seems to mean “one who looked human but came in a heavenly manner and was led into the presence of God.”
The question is, was Jesus referring to himself? There is no scholarly consensus on this. Bert Ehrman (boo! hiss!), for example, believes he was not: At Last. Jesus and the Son of Man. - The Bart Ehrman Blog Ehrman is far from alone in this belief.
The Son of Man in Daniel was clearly a heavenly figure and not the earthly Jesus. If Jesus was, or thought he was, someone who would eventually fill the heavenly role described in Daniel, then he may well have referred to himself as the Son of Man - but would it have made sense to his listeners for the earthly Jesus to be equating himself to the heavenly figure of Daniel 7? (Ehrman thinks this would have been “actually quite contrary” to Jesus’ view of himself.)
Oddly, when the angel explains to Daniel the meaning of his vision, the angel never refers at all to “the one like a son of man” but instead refers repeatedly to “the holy people of the Most High,” as though perhaps the son of man were not an individual at all.
Why didn’t Jesus just say Son of God - was he just being coy? Would his listeners really have made the connection suggested in the article - i.e., that he was emphasizing both his humanity and his role as the heavenly figure of Daniel 7? Why is the phrase Son of Man so prevalent in the Gospels but nowhere in Paul’s epistles? Indeed, it appears nowhere else in the entire NT except Acts 7:26 (Stephen’s vision as he’s being stoned) and Hebrews 2:6 (speaking not of Jesus but of humans in general).
