Jesus’ Use of the Title “Son Of Man” in Matthew 26:64

By Steven H. Sanchez [1]

Introduction

In Matthew 26:63–64 we read one of the most dramatic scenes in the gospels. Interrogating Jesus, Caiaphas demands, “Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus’ response condemns him in the eyes of his accusers. “It is as you said,” he replied, “Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” [2] When he heard his confession the High Priest tore his clothes, and the council pronounced its judgment: death. As dramatic as this scene is with Jesus’ life in the balance, it is easy to pass quickly over our Lord’s response. The careful reader will notice that though his initial statement answered Caiaphas’ question, Jesus’ subsequent response appears to contradict it. The question was, “Are you the Christ, the Son of God?” Jesus’ answer was, “Yes, and you will see the Son of Man….” The question asked about a claim to deity, and Jesus’ answer includes a claim to humanity. What was he trying to communicate? What did Jesus mean when he applied the phrase “Son of Man” to himself?” The following article will demonstrate that Jesus’ use of the phrase “Son of Man” meant more than is commonly understood. The Sanhedrin was justly indignant at these words coming from Jesus’ lips, because from the lips of a man that was blasphemy.

A Popular Understanding: Humanity vs. Deity

Many in our churches today understand the title Son of Man as a title which emphasizes Jesus’ humanity. When we speak of Christ’s deity, we call him the Son of God; but when we want to identify him as a human being, we call him the Son of Man. One describes his glory, the other his humility. One his divinity, the other his humanity. But is that all there is to this phrase? Is Christ referring to his humanity in contrast to his deity, or is there more to appreciate? If the title refers to his humanity, how is it that the Sanhedrin condemned him for applying it to himself? I would contend that Jesus was in fact declaring his deity in association with his humanity by employing an Old Testament stock image from Daniel 7:13–14. Interpretations which understand this phrase to exalt Jesus’ humanity as opposed to his deity fail to encompass all that is contained in the phrase “Son of Man” as Jesus used it. This title expresses Christ’s deity, authority, power, and judgment in association with his humanity. This is demonstrated clearly by Jesus’ statements in Matthew 26:64.

Some Historical Interpretations

One of the most basic theological tenets of orthodox Christianity is that our Savior, Jesus Christ, is both human and divine. [3] That is, he is one, unique individual with two distinct natures: human and divine. In fact if this was not the case, salvation would not be possible, for in order to save humanity, it is necessary for the Savior to be human. As one reads the Gospel accounts of our Lord’s life on the earth, his humanity is evident. He had a body (John 1:14). He grew hungry (Matt. 4:2). He grew tired (John 4:6). He demonstrated emotion (John 11:35). [4] These characteristics are evidences of his human nature. Although the issue was a contentious one in the early centuries of Christianity, by the time of Chalcedon (ad 451) it had become an official part of the orthodox description of the nature of the second person of the Trinity. [5] Since those early centuries of Christianity one title for Jesus stands out above all others as symbolic of all that was his humanity, Son of Man. This title, it has been understood, describes Jesus in his humanity as opposed to Jesus in his deity. This was the view of the author of the Epistle of Barnabas written ca. ad 100. [6] This was also the view of Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, ca. ad 144, as well as Irenaus (ca. ad 185), Tertullian (ad 207–8), Hippolytus (ca. ad 230), Jerome (letter written in ad 400), and Augustine (City of God, ad 413–426). [7] Bock notes, speaking about the period in which the church fathers wrote, “The term expresses his humanity and his millennial return to judge. It stands in contrast to the term, ‘Son of God,’ which to the fathers signifies Christ’s Deity.” [8] This view essentially carries sway unchanged through the medieval period and the Reformation and into the modern period. Bock concludes, “It was regarded as messianic with little discussion of the term’s significance beyond its being seen as a term signifying Christ’s humanity and return.” [9] This view was also held by both Lewis Sperry Chafer and C. I. Scofield. [10] The popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible has resulted in the proliferation of Scofield’s view, and many in our churches today would agree with him. The title Son of Man describes the fact that Christ was a human just like you and me. That understanding, however, cannot be supported. Before focusing on Matthew 26:64, it is necessary to survey the uses of this phrase in both the Old and New Testaments.

“Son of man” in the Old Testament

Psalm 8:3-5, 80:17

The phrase “son of man” finds its first usage in the Old Testament in Psalm 8:4.

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor (Psa. 8:3–5).

In this context, the phrase is used to describe the human race. The author uses the phrase in an example of the well-attested Hebrew literary device known as parallelism. The “son of man” is here synonymously parallel to the word “man,” so that he is clearly understood to be talking about humanity. [11] At issue is the author’s amazement over the fact that God cares about human beings as much as He does in spite of all their frailties, weaknesses, and inabilities. [12] The phrase finds similar usage in Psalm 80:17, where the Psalmist asks God to support the human leader he has chosen for Israel. “Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, Upon the son of man whom You made strong for Yourself.” These two uses present the phrase “son of man” as simply meaning “human.”

The Prophets: Isaiah and Ezekiel

Isaiah uses the phrase in its plural form in a Messianic context in 52:14. “Just as many were astonished at you, So His visage was marred more than any man, And His form more than the sons of men.” Though the broad context speaks of the death, burial, and return of Messiah, the immediate context clearly demonstrates that the author is comparing what happened to the Servant of the Lord with the abuses that other human beings have suffered. [13] In Ezekiel we find this phrase used some ninety times. In each case the referent of the phrase is the prophet. God repeatedly calls him the equivalent of “human” to stress his weakness and dependence. [14]

And He said to me: Son of man, I am sending you to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day (Ezek. 2:3). 

Therefore, son of man, speak to the house of Israel, and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: In this too your fathers have blasphemed Me, by being unfaithful to Me (Ezek. 20:27). 

Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern (Ezek. 43:10).

Daniel 7:13-14

The phrase finds its final Old Testament use in Daniel 7:13–14. [15] In chapter 7 we witness a grand messianic vision, which as Walvoord describes it, “provides the most comprehensive and detailed prophecy of future events to be found anywhere in the Old Testament.” [16] The vision gives God’s perspective on the future of the world, and is a masterpiece of visual imagery and symbolism. In it four world empires are presented in succession: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. [17] Ferocious beasts (a lion, a bear, and a leopard) represent the first three empires. As the vision progresses the final beast, representing Rome, is simply indescribable. The writer can only say that the beast was, “dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong” (7:7). These beasts are bent on destruction and we watch as they succeed to a degree. The vision continues and a courtroom scene unfolds. Thrones are installed, the court is inaugurated, and the books are opened. The Ancient of Days sits down and passes swift judgment. In this context of majesty, honor, power, and judgment a new character appears, one who looks like a human being. In contrast to the ferocious, horrific, and indescribable beasts Daniel saw previously, the being before him now looks like a human, and Daniel describes him as “a son of man.”

I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:13–14).

This figure descending with the clouds looked like a human in contrast to the four beasts. That this is no ordinary human becomes clear very quickly as he is ushered into the very throne room of God is given an everlasting kingdom! It is important to note here that Daniel’s use of the phrase “son of man” does not describe the being as deity, but refers to his human appearance. We understand that he is deity from the context. [18] This entire vision climaxes in the arrival of this one described as a “son of man.” The scene is one of glory, power, exaltation, victory, and judgment. This vision could be described as the “Son of Man” vision, and it will have significant impact on Jesus’ use of the phrase “son of man.” [19]

Title or Description, Humanity or Deity

So we must ask the question, is the phrase “son of man” a title for this person in Daniel 7, or is it descriptive of what Daniel saw? Is it titular, or non-titular? Old Testament usage indicates and it seems best to argue that, with the exception of Ezekiel, the phrase is not used as a title for a person but rather is a description designed to contrast this character with others already described in a given context. The authors intend simply to describe their subject.

The next question concerns meaning? Usage indicates that in the Old Testament the phrase describes humanity, and not deity. All instances, the uses in Ezekiel included, carry no more significance than that of “human.”

The most controversial passage is this so-called “Son of Man Vision.” Here the phrase is used in a context that obviously relates to deity. But even here it is clear that this use carries the same non-titular, human meaning for two reasons. First, the context of the phrase clearly indicates that Daniel is comparing the beasts he sees in the vision. Until the point when the “one like a son of man” descends Daniel has only seen ferocious beasts. Then he saw something completely different, a man!

Second, the grammar of the phrase supports the same meaning. Simply put the phrase is anarthrous, that is, it lacks a definite article, כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ (kéḅār ʾénās̆) (Dan. 7:13), and therefore should not be translated “like the son of man,” but rather, “like a son of man.” [20] The phrase stands in direct parallel to Daniel’s descriptions of three of the four beasts. They were, כְאַרַיֵה (kʾaryĕh) “like a lion” (7:4), דָּמְיָה לְדֹב (dāméyāh léḍōḅ) “like a bear” (7:5), and כִּנְמַר (kinémār)”like a leopard” (7:6). Daniel did not know the true nature of the beasts he saw; he only described them using images he understood. Similarly, he did not know the true nature of this being who was brought before God, but rather he described what he looked like. He appeared, כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ (kéḅār ʾénās̆) “like a son of mankind.”

“Son of Man” in the New Testament

Turning to the New Testament we find widespread use of the phrase in the Gospels. The phrase is used eighty-one times in the New Testament, sixty-nine times in the Synoptic Gospels, and thirty times in Matthew alone. In Matthew, it is always found on Jesus’ lips and has been described as, “Jesus’ favorite name for himself.” [21] Using Matthew as an example, the contexts in which it is found are usually summarized into three broad categories:

1. The present ministry and authority of Messiah (8:20; 9:6; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 37; 20:28).
2. The suffering and resurrection of Messiah (12:40; 17:19, 12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24, 45).
3. The future coming of Messiah (10:23; 13:41; 16:27, 28; 19:28; 24:37, 39, 44; 25:31; 26:64). [22]

Examples of the “present authority” use include Matthew 9:6, where Jesus heals the paralytic as proof that he has the authority to forgive sins, and Matthew 12:18, where Jesus exerts his authority over Sabbath day regulations.

Examples of the phrase in the context of suffering and resurrection include Matthew 20:18, where Jesus speaks to his disciples about his condemnation at the hands of the Jewish leaders, and Matthew 26:2, where Jesus speaks directly of his crucifixion.

Finally Jesus’ future coming finds use in Matthew 24:37, where Jesus compares his coming to that of the flood in the days of Noah, and in the passage in question, Matthew 26:64, where he speaks of the Son of Man coming in the clouds. It is critical to realize that unlike the Old Testament uses outside of Ezekiel, Jesus uses the phrase exclusively as a title. Why? The key to understanding is realizing that he is making use of a particular “stock image” that would have been familiar to the Jewish mind, the “son of man vision” of Daniel 7. Whereas Daniel used it as a description, Jesus used it as a title.

Implications for Understanding Matthew 26:64

To summarize, in Daniel 7 we read a description of a vision, which Daniel describes as an august scene complete with terrible creatures intent on devouring. Into this setting comes one who looks like a human being and he is given authority, power, judgment, and an eternal kingdom. From initial chaos the vision has brought us to stability under the leadership of a man! But this is no ordinary man, for he has access to the very presence of God and is closely associated with the Ancient of Days.

Jesus is referring to this scene when he uses the phrase “son of man” as a title for himself in Matthew 26:64. The scene is again a scene of judgment, but ironically the roles are reversed. The High Priest, of all people, is judging Jesus, the unrecognized King of the Jews. Luz describes this scene as “paradoxical and full of Johannine irony: the High Priest, unknowingly judges the judge.” [23] In his responses to Caiaphas, Jesus reaches back one last time (as he has many times in his ministry) to Daniel 7, calls to mind the entire “Son of Man” scene, and applies it to himself by using the phrase as a title. In its titular form the phrase was intended to capture all of the imagery of the Daniel 7 vision. Not only the human description of this “one like a son of man,” but also the powerful deity allusions made clear by his association with the Ancient of Days, and his descent “on the clouds of heaven.” Jesus identifies himself as that “son of man” and leaves no room for misunderstanding. He, as a human being, claimed to have authority over an everlasting kingdom given to him by God! Jesus takes ownership of all the dominion and glory witnessed by Daniel. [24] As Bock notes, “The picture is of a sovereign, divinely related exercise of power.” [25] By applying this Son of Man “stock image” to himself, Jesus sealed his fate before the Jewish leaders because they indeed understood what he was saying; and when a man spoke those words, he deserved death. Though he stood under their judgment, Jesus makes it clear that he in fact has the final authority and will one day come in power and judge them. They should have heeded his warning, but instead they were offended at his claim to deity. [26] Matthew tells us, “Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, ‘He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!’” (Matt. 26:65)

Conclusion

Matthew 26:64 in Light of Daniel 7:13

In conclusion, in order to accurately understand Jesus’ statements before Caiaphas in Matthew 26:64 we must take into account Jesus’ use of Daniel 7:13–14. This imagery must be included in our understanding of Jesus’ use of the phrase “son of man.” Though it is not used as a title in Daniel 7:13, Jesus gives it this force by his frequent use of it to describe himself. This is critical to our understanding of who Jesus was and the nature of his mission. Our appreciation will be enhanced if we understand all of the “Son of Man” sayings in Matthew (and the other gospel accounts) in light of Daniel 7:13. Using the threefold division of “Son of Man” occurrences alluded to earlier, here are some examples.

His Humility

Though the “Son of Man” had great authority and power before the incarnation and in spite of the fact that he has been promised great authority and a kingdom, he condescended to humanity so that he might save them. (Phil. 2:5–11). Gundry notes on this theme speaking of Matthew 8:20, “If Jesus took the expression to himself from Dan 7:13–14, this saying conveys the shocking truth that the manlike figure who in Daniel’s vision comes to receive universal dominion — this exalted figure wrapped with clouds like God himself — first suffers rejection!” [27]

His Authority

The passages which point to the “authority” of Jesus’ present ministry, understood in light of Daniel 7:13, help the reader appreciate the fact that Jesus’ claim to authority and to the kingdom are given to him by the Ancient of Days himself. Though Jesus did not look like a glorious king during this earthly ministry that did not change who he was. [28]

His Return

Finally passages which focus on “apocalyptic” themes should help us appreciate the fact that Jesus will come again. He will not come the way he came the first time, but will come, “on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). He will come for judgment and he will come to set up his kingdom. This is not to say that other opinions which place primary emphasis on the humanity of the “Son of Man” are completely misguided, only that they overemphasize his humanity to the neglect of his power and authority. Yes, the person in Daniel 7:13 looked like a man, but the scene speaks of more than just his humanity. It reveals him to be the Messiah, who will one day judge the world and establish his kingdom in it. This was Jesus’ intent when he called himself “the Son of Man.”

Notes

1. Steve Sanchez is alumnus of Emmaus and is currently in the doctoral program in Old Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.
2. Unless otherwise stated Scripture references are taken from the New King James version of the Bible.
3. “The Creed of Nicea,” in The Creeds of the Church, ed. John H. Leith, 3d ed. (Louisville: John Knox, 1982), 28–31.
4. Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1986), 249–51. Ryrie’s outline, though basic, is more than sufficient to demonstrate the fact that Jesus Christ was a real, living, breathing, human being.
5. “The Definition of Chalcedon,” in Leith, Creeds of the Church, 34–36.
6. Darrell Lane Bock, “The Son of Man in Daniel and the Messiah” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979), 7. Bock includes a brief survey of the interpretations of the view, and I am following his presentation. Though the comments of these early fathers also emphasize the messianic portion of the title, the concern of this paper is that they saw the title as a reference to Christ’s humanity as opposed to his deity. See U. Luz, “The Son of Man in Matthew: Heavenly Judge or Human Christ,” JSNT 48 (December 1992): 3. “One has the impression that most of these texts have no idea of an apocalyptic background of the expression and make no use of the Gospel usage, but try to interpret a difficult and mysterious expression in their own new context.” Though Luz makes a good point concerning the difficulty the church fathers had understanding this phrase, he goes on to argue that Matthew did not have any apocalyptic understanding of the phrase either. He overstates his case when he says, “This does not mean that he [Matthew] was familiar with the Danielic or Jewish apocalyptic concept of a son of man, because naturally he as a Christian did not read anything else into Dan. 7:13–14 but that Jesus would sit on the clouds of heaven and that to him all power would be given.” Luz, “The Son of Man in Matthew,” 8.
7. Bock, The Son of Man in Daniel, 7–12.
8. Bock, The Son of Man in Daniel, 12.
9. Bock, The Son of Man in Daniel, 15.
10. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, Soteriology (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary Press, 1948), 31–3. Chafer’s view here is that Christ used this title of himself because his humanity, as the “new element” of the God-man, needed emphasis. C. I. Scofield described the title as Christ’s “racial name as the representative Man in the sense of 1 Cor. 15:45–47” (see note at Ezek. 2:1). The idea is that Christ represents all that humanity could have been had Adam not sinned. Scofield includes in the term a sense of judgment, but only after Christ’s message has been rejected by the Jewish leaders. C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), 1006.
11. “A common Hebrew poetical pattern where two or more lines using different words say the same thing; the sense of the first line is repeated in the second (e.g., Psa. 19:1; Matt. 7:7).” D. Brent Sandy and Ronald L. Giese Jr., Cracking Old Testament Codes (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 302; See also Thomas B. Slater, “One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism,” NTS 41 (April 1995): 184; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, New Testament Commentary, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 404.
12. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Leicester, UK: InterVarsity, 1981), 273; Slater, One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism, 184; Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 404.
13. At issue here is not whether this passage is speaking about the Messiah, but whether the phrase “sons of men” is a title or simply a description in parallel with “man.”
14. Although Guthrie dismisses these uses of the phrase in his discussion, their significance lies in the fact that they help establish a pattern in Hebrew usage as a description for humanity. See Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), 128–9; John E. Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and John D. W. Watts, vol. 30 (Dallas: Word, 1989), 167. “ ‘Son of Man’ is a literalistic Semitism.” Hendriksen notes that similar phrases such as, “sons of wickedness,” “son of a foreigner,” etc. refer to human attributes as well. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 404.
15. The term is also used extra-biblically in 1 Enoch 46:1–3, and 2 Esdras 13:1–4 (Slater, One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism, 184). For a more comprehensive study of occurrences of this phrase in extra-biblical Jewish literature see, Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53–65 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 42–110.
16. John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 145.
17. This is the view of conservative scholarship which holds to an early dating of Daniel prior to the events predicted in chapter 7. Cf. Walvoord. Daniel, 145; Gleason L. Archer Jr, “Daniel,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gæbelein, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 85.
18. Barnabas Lindars supports the same conclusion and argues that outside the Gospels and Acts 7:56, the phrase bar enash does not carry any messianic meaning in and of itself. It simply means “a man or a human being.” It gains its messianic associations from the surrounding context. “It is the contexts as a whole in 1 Enoch 46; 2 Esdras 13; Revelation 1:13; 14:14 which provides the reference to the figure of Daniel 7:13–14, using descriptive features which make the allusion unmistakable.” Barnabas Lindars, Jesus Son of Man (Oxford: SPCK, 1983), 10–11. Horbury argues, contra Lindars, that the phrase did in fact carry messianic allusions. He points to the fact that Daniel 7 was probably written early enough for its messianic interpretations to become part of the meaning of the phrase. “The phrase necessarily has a wide semantic range; but it is likely that it included, within that range, established messianic associations, such that it could have been taken by Jewish hearers or readers as a reference to the messiah. In this sense, it will be suggested, the phrase was indeed a messianic title.” W. Horbury, “The Messianic Associations of “The Son of Man,” JTS ns 36 (April 1985): 36.
19. There is much division over the meaning of the Aramaic phrase here translated “a son of man.” Part of the issue lies in the fact that though Daniel 7:13 is written in Aramaic, and Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic, the gospel writers wrote in Greek, so there is a question as to whether or not they were able to accurately translate the Semitic idiom. For a detailed discussion of the issue see Geza Vermes, “The Use of בר נשׁא וֹבר נשׁ in Jewish Aramaic,” in An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels by Matthew Black, 3d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 310–330.
20. Walvoord, Daniel, 167; Driver notes, “The rendering of the A.V., ‘The Son of Man’ is quite untenable: the expression of the original is indefinite, and denotes simply, in poetical language, a figure in human form.” Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 88; Goldingay, Daniel, 167.
21. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 685.
22. I. Howard Marshall, “Son of Man,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels; Guthrie, NT Theology, 275–77; Morris, Matthew, 201; D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gæbelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 209; Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 146–47; Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 405–6.
23. Luz, The Son of Man in Matthew, 17.
24. Bock notes that in the Old Testament only God or the gods ride clouds (Exod. 14:20; Num. 10:34; Psa. 104:3; Isa. 19:1). Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, 201.
25. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, 201.
26. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 932–3.
27. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 152.
28. Hendriksen notes, “He is the man of sorrows, but this very path of suffering leads to the crown, to glory. Moreover, this glory is revealed not only eschatologically, when he comes with the clouds, but reaches back as it were, through his entire life on earth and through every redemptive act. He is always the glorious Son of Man!” Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 405.