Son of Man
"The Son of Man" is Jesus' favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase, which occurs over 80 times in the gospels, is spoken by Christ himself in every instance except four, and even those refer to what Jesus said about himself (Mark 8:31; 9:9; Luke 24:7; John 12:34). In other words, this phrase is only found on the lips of Jesus or those quoting him. While the phrase is spread throughout each of the four gospels, I will focus on its use in Matthew for now.
Since it is Christ's most used phrase to refer to himself, "the Son of Man" must carry great significance. Yet, ironically the phrase seems to completely fly under the radar from the start of Matthew. The first example of Jesus calling himself the Son of Man occurs in Chapter eight, where he responds to a would-be disciple: "Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head" (8:20). To align oneself with Christ as his disciple certainly will not bring worldly significance because the Master himself is poor and lowly.
What is the reaction to Christ here? We are not told. But nobody picks up stones to throw at him or conspires to kill him. And yet, the last time Jesus mouths these words in Matthew, he sparks a powder keg of rage in the high priest and is condemned to die as a blasphemer.
How can the same phrase not even cause a stir but also provoke an explosion? How can the same phrase refer to an impoverished man and an exalted King on par with God himself?
Christians have often taken the phrase "the Son of Man" to emphasize Jesus' humanity. Doubtless, the first use noted above, fits nicely with this since Jesus is a poor man who, under all the limitations of a man, lacked a place to lay his head. And yet, with the next use, Jesus claims that he, as the Son of Man, "has authority on earth to forgive sins" which is the prerogative of God alone (9:6).
The Old Testament used "Son of man" predominantly to speak of humanity in general (Num 23:19; Ps 8:4; 146:3; Job 16:21, etc.) or humans in particular like Ezekiel (over 90 times), or Daniel (8:17). But there is that one exalted use of "one like a son of man" in Daniel's vision where a super-human figure certainly is in view (7:13-14). Jews, ancient and modern, agree that this text speaks of the Christ (see Gill's commentary on Daniel). Consequently, there seems to be a degree of flexibility in the OT's use of the term.
This flexibility seems to be precisely what Jesus leverages to, at one and the same time, evade undue controversy and opposition, and to escape the pressure to perform according to popular expectations of a political Christ who would overturn Rome, while still—albeit in a round-about way—promoting himself as the actual Christ. Those without ears could not hear what he was saying. But those to whom the Father revealed the secrets of the kingdom could begin to understand (11:25; 13:11). Even so, Jesus' disciples only fully understood what he meant after his death and resurrection.
As we work our way through Matthew, Jesus' bold and sustained claims of authority elicit the ire of his antagonists. This is not due to Jesus calling himself "son of man" per se, as if the phrase itself were a tacit claim to authority, but because one who was a man placed himself uniquely alongside God, sharing his authority--exclusively the Christ's role. As such, Jesus' antagonists deepened in their opposition to such a man (12:8-14; 13:57; 16:1; 19:3; 21:15, 23, 45-46; 22:15, 23, 35; 26:3, 59, preeminently 26:65 and Chapter 27).
Rounding out this claim to authority, as "the Son of Man," Jesus presents himself as an eschatological figure ushering in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Son of Man has command over the angels and executes his sovereign power by judging all evil and bringing salvation for his elect across the world (13:41; 16:27, 28; 19:28; 24:27-44; 25:31; 26:64, see Dan 7:13-14). As such, this end-times figure appears at the end of the age to inaugurate the new age, exercise his rightful claim to the throne of David, rule the nations, and to consummate all of history--all the pedigree of the Christ.
What was hard for people to understand, both in OT times and in Jesus' day, was that the coming of the Christ, the Son of Man, would occur in two stages (Jesus' first and second comings). Knowing that the coming of this end-times figure progressively unfolds over two advents helps us make sense of two perplexing texts which do not cleanly fit into either first or second comings (10:23; 16:28; see 6:10 for a clear text speaking of a progressive unfolding of the kingdom's coming).
It was equally hard for people in the past to understand that the Christ would accomplish the apparently paradoxical missions of dying as a substitute for sin and ruling eternally as King. Jesus presents himself as the same Son of Man who is equal in authority with his Father and is peculiarly the eschatological Christ-King, but is also the quintessential servant on a clear path leading to his own suffering, death, and resurrection (12:40; 17:9, 12, 22; 26:2, 24, 45). As such, this Son of Man is the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah who came to die for the sins of his people (compare Matthew 1:21; 20:28 with Isaiah 53; Matthew 12:18-21 with Isaiah 42:1-4). How could he rule forever despite his substitutionary death? Christ's victorious resurrection decisively answers that. Many Jewish theologians, unable to reconcile these two clear expectations of the Christ, however, reasoned that there would be two Messiahs, one who would die and another who would reign. Yet Jesus is as lowly as he is exalted.
Perhaps it has not quite clicked yet, but Matthew wants to convince you that when Jesus called himself "the Son of Man," he was filling out, in a subtle and yet progressively revealing way, that he was the Christ in all the fullness of that term. The Christ is a man and clearly more than a man. The Christ is the substitutionary savior and the all-powerful King.
Matthew connects the dots between Son of Man, Son of God, and the Christ twice in his gospel: In a pivotal exchange between Jesus and Peter, "the Son of Man" is equated with the Christ and the Son of God in Peter's remarkable confession (16:13-20) as well as in Jesus' climactic response to Caiaphas (26:63-64). As such, "the Son of Man," when taken fully, forms a clear image of the one Christ who accomplishes a complete redemption: far more than just a man, far more than an astounding military hero, fully able to die as a substitute yet reign forever as King, fully man and fully God, humble yet forever exalted on high.
So let us walk in the humility of this Son of Man while exalting his name on high!
