«SON OF MAN». – A Semitic expression normally meaning “man.” In Hebrew, *ben ‘ādām* (“s. of m.”) is found in parallelism with *‘ādām* or *‘ēnôš* (“man”): Job 25:6; Ps. (Heb.) 144:3; Isa. 51:12; Ex. 2:1, etc. In Aramaic and Syriac, *bar ‘ēnôš* (“s. of m.”) or *bar māsā’* (“the s. of m.”) is commonly used to denote “man.”
Yet it seems that the expression assumes a particular, messianic sense in Daniel and the Gospels.
Dan. 7:13–14, after describing the vision of the four beasts, continues: “I was watching in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a man (in Aramaic, *kĕbar ‘ēnôš*, ‘like a s. of m.’), who came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom” (translation by G. Rinaldi, p. 82). Daniel himself explains the vision: “These great beasts, four in number, are four kings who shall arise from the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess it forever” (7:17–18); and further: “The kingdom… shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High” (7:27). The passage is certainly messianic, as taught by Jews and Christians alike. The question arises whether this “s. of m.” refers to an individual (the Messiah) or a collectivity (the people of the saints, messianic). From the context, it appears that the prophet understood it in a collective sense (7:17–18, 27). Yet this collective sense does not exclude the possibility that the “people of the saints” is presided over by an individual Messiah: the King who, for the ancients, embodied the kingdom. This individual sense (which we might call the “full literal sense,” if not perfectly grasped by the prophet, was understood only by the inspiring God) is seen in the prophecy through subsequent revelation, which interprets it authentically.
Jesus, before Caiaphas, cites and interprets the prophecy of Daniel, applying it to the individual Messiah, indeed to himself: “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, coming with the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). In Jewish tradition, the expression was applied to the Messiah in the apocryphal *Ethiopic Enoch* 46:2. *4 Ezra* 13:1–4 (1st c. AD) also discerns an individual sense.
In the Gospels, the definite expression “the Son of Man” (*ho hyios tou anthrōpou*) occurs 32 times in Matthew, 14 in Mark, 26 in Luke, and 12 in John, always on the lips of Jesus (or those repeating his words). These passages are examined by P. Vannutelli (pp. 1–17). Elsewhere in the New Testament, the formula appears once on the lips of St. Stephen: “I see the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56, alluding to Dan. 7:13) and twice in Revelation (1:13 and 14:14, quoting Dan. 7:13: *ho hyios tou anthrōpou*).
What does this expression, which Jesus alone applies to himself, mean? P. Vannutelli (p. 45) concludes that “the Son of Man” on Jesus’ lips means “man,” i.e., “I” (*ho hyios tou anthrōpou* = *anthrōpos* = “I”).
Grammatically, this interpretation of the Semitic expression may be justified; all the more so since in some parallel passages of the Synoptics the formula is replaced by “I” (cf. Matt. 5:11 with Luke 6:22; Matt. 10:32 with Luke 12:8; Matt. 16:21 with Mark 8:31 and Luke 9:22; Matt. 19:28 with Luke 22:29; Matt. 20:28 with Mark 10:45 and Luke 22:27).
This solution, however, does not seem satisfactory in all cases. The more common opinion among the Fathers and ancient scholars holds that Jesus, in using this formula, intended to emphasize his human nature, assumed in the Incarnation.
Others suppose that Jesus, in using this formula, clearly identifies himself as the Messiah foretold by Daniel. This solution fits well with Matt. 26:64, before Caiaphas; yet it does not seem acceptable for all other instances. Moreover, if Jesus had explicitly claimed the title of the glorious Messiah, he would have fostered the expectation of a political Messiah, which he sought instead to correct.
The best solution holds that Jesus, applying this title—which could mean, depending on the context, “man,” “I,” or “Messiah”—intended to modulate the light of his messianic revelation. By calling himself with the messianic title used by Daniel, which could yet take on veiled tones, he implied that he was an extraordinary man, and, for those capable of understanding, the “Son of Man” spoken of by Daniel. By using this term in predicting his passion, he also corrected the Jewish expectation of a glorious political Messiah.
Some rationalists, assuming that “Son of Man” is a clear messianic title drawn from Daniel, deny that Jesus used II. They suppose that the primitive community put these words into Jesus’ mouth to express their faith. This theory, which denies the historical value of the Gospel, can be refuted even if the formula is understood as a veiled messianic title chosen by Jesus to modulate the light.