I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise
and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will

The Son of Man was Jesus' favorite designation of himself -- eighty times in the gospels, 30 in Matthew, 14 in Mark, 25 in Luke, and 11 in the Fourth Gospel.  Herein lies a great mystery because none of the epistles know him by that title, nor do the evangelists, except as quotations from his lips.  Indeed, the phrase appears only four more times in the New Testament : Acts 7:56 where Stephen says (at his martyrdom):

Hebrews 2:6, quoting from Psalm 8:4 and 144:3:
And twice in Revelations, 1:13 and 14:14:
All of these references, except Acts 7:66 (quoting Stephen at his martyrdom) are either quotations from the Psalms that have no reference to Jesus (Hebrews 2:6, Psalms 8:4 and 144:3), or are oblique references to the Daniel prophecy (7:13,14).  Do they intend to refer to Jesus as the Son of man, or as "one like a son of man" as it appears in Daniel?  This raises a very significant question that we will investigate later:

Why do no references to Jesus as "son of man" (with only one exception) appear in the New Testament outside the utterances of the Lord?

The term is unique to Jesus, since none of his disciples, including the evangelists, used it except as quoted by Jesus.  Others surely did not understand it, which seems the best reason for their not having utilized it.  Only once in the gospels is it questioned, and this by persons hostile to the Lord:

Jesus chose not to answer the question directly, but digressed into a statement about "the Light."  As we shall see, this was not really a digression, but the answer to their question! The verse does suggest it to be a messianic title in the minds of those of "the crowd." This seems the closest explanation we can get from Jesus as to it's significance, which, standing alone, seems inadequate. However, we will see that it is very enLightening.


I. The Old Testament Background

We want to know why he used this title for himself, and why he did not explain it to us, his disciples, in greater detail. The first and obvious place to look for our answer is in the Old Testament.  There we find at least three separate uses of the term, and it is my position that all of them apply. 


As an Emphatic Synonym for "Man"

This is the most frequent use, beginning with the first times the term appears in the Old Testament:

These are not prophesying Jesus, the Son of man; each simply emphasizes the status of being a man, or a human being.   They are emphatic synonyms for "man."


As an Identification With the Son of Man in Psalm 80

This Psalm is rich in the metaphors that Jesus applied to himself, and is certainly one of the inspirations for his use of the term as a self designation.  Look at it and see, highlighted in purple, these metaphors:

Jesus identified himself as the Shepherd of Israel.  In the beginning of his testimony, he looked over the fields of Judah and saw them as sheep without a shepherd; He identified himself as the Good Shepherd, whose sheep hear his voice and are saved. 

He pointed to himself as the vine when describing himself and his true disciples, saying,

He is the "man of thy right hand," and "the son of man whom thou hast made strong for thyself."  Surely his face shines for our salvation, as the Light of the World, from whose lips came the Light of our salvation!  He is also man, "the man of thy right hand," for which "son of man" in vs. 17 is another case of an emphatic synonym for "a man."


As a Messianic Title and Designation of the Prophet in Daniel

Here we have this reference strongly suggestive of messianic prophecy:

Very important: Daniel does not refer to this messianic figure as the Son of man, but only one "like a son of man." We will return to this below.  Later, the Prophet has the angel, Gabriel, address him:


The angel seeks to cut Daniel down to size, by reminding him, emphatically, that he is only a man, the son of man.  It is also an emphatic synonym for "man."


A Self designation of the Prophet Ezekiel and an Emphatic Synonym for Man

The following is typical of Ezekiel:
It is easy to see Jesus comparing himself with Ezekiel --  and taking the same title so as to direct our attention to the comparison.  Let us list some of the comparisons:

1. Recall that Jesus was sent to the people of Israel (a rebellious house) precisely as Ezekiel (v. 3) was sent. 

2. Also, as with Ezekiel, whether they hear or refuse to hear, they will know that there has been a prophet among them (v. 5). 

3. They did not hear Ezekiel, nor did they hear Jesus, and the judgment that Ezekiel was given to pronounce against Israel is very similar to that stated by Jesus 500 years later:

Compare this with Jesus:

4. Like Jesus, Ezekiel was greatly disturbed by this judgment:

5. Like Jesus, Ezekiel goes on to prophesy the salvation of a remnant of Israel:
The strongest evidence we have of this comparison of himself with Ezekiel is in his use of the pastoral metaphor of Good Shepherd and sheep.  We have this from Ezekiel:
And from Jesus:

There is a change here, for Jesus is not just simply comparing himself with Ezekiel; he is setting himself as the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy.  Further, the remnant of Jesus is not only composed of the sons of Israel, but of other sheep, that are not of this fold.

6.  There are numerous other points of comparison between Jesus and Ezekiel, and I list only this and one more. First, Ezekiel was like Jesus in that he received words directly from "the Lord God."  He was not the only prophet to do so, but his emphasis on the point puts him far out ahead of the others.  Having counted them, I find the following counts in the prophets, where they use the expression, "says the Lord God," indicating that they were receiving their words directly from God.

Ezekiel's count is so excessive as to cover the others in his dust.  He is the "says the Lord God" prophet.  He is the one who repeats in the world what he heard from the Lord God, and this is his testimony far more than that of any other prophet.

By way of comparison we have this from Jesus, in which he attributes all his teachings to God.
Jesus did not use the expression, "says the Lord God" as did Ezekiel, yet he made the same point in other ways, by asserting that he heard from God what he was saying, and that his Word was the Father's Word.  Like Ezekiel, he repeated in the world what he heard from the Lord God, and this similarity is far greater than with any other prophet.

7. Finally, we list one other comparison, which also contains a difference.  How was it that the Lord God spoke to Ezekiel?  Did the Lord God come down to earth, or lift Ezekiel up?
The prophet does not leave us without an answer, and it begins with Ezekiel 1:1:

Elsewhere he is more specific as to how he was "lifted" up so as to see these visions of God:

Considering all the many points of comparison, we can see clearly another one here, for Jesus was also lifted up to receive his revelations from God:


Now, the difference, the very big difference, is this: In the case of Ezekiel, the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven, and brought me in visions of God (8:3). Jesus, as Son of man, ascended all the way to heaven whereas Ezekiel was lifted up only between heaven and earth.  And on top of this, Ezekiel did not see God, but he only saw "visions of God."  Jesus saw God!  Jesus explained:

Therefore, the evangelist was making an exception for Jesus when he wrote:

II. Why Jesus Called Himself "The Son of Man"

The angel, Gabriel, addressed Ezekiel by the emphatic synonym for man, that is, "son of man."  Therefore, when Jesus identifies himself by means of the same emphatic synonym, "son of man," and also conforms to the general pattern we see in the prophet Ezekiel, I conclude that this must have been one of the reasons.

Jesus did not identify himself with Ezekiel.  In all the above, we find that he was only comparing himself to metaphors from  Ezekiel -- that is, he was not Ezekiel, but he fit the same pattern as Ezekiel in his person and his ministry.  Throughout Ezekiel and the Old Testament, "son of man" is an emphatic synonym for "man."  There is no reason to make a distinction when we go to the New Testament and to the many times Jesus applied it to himself.  He would not have done it had he not intended to emphasize his status as a man -- as a human being in every point of his being!  Therefore we have in the gospels those 80 times when Jesus emphasized that he was a man.  Here is one case where he stated it simply:

His many designations of himself as "son of man" amounts to am emphasis of an emphasis!  It follows, therefore, that every time he uses it he is saying that he was not virgin born.  He was, and is, most emphatically the Son of man, and most emphatically a son of man. 

If Jesus had been virgin born according to Christian doctrine, he would not have used this emphatic synonym for himself because, in that case, it would not have been true and he would have been misrepresenting himself.  Thus, we find him by implication denying some 80 times in the gospels that he is virgin born!  More than that, he was affirming, by means of this emphatic synonym, that he was a man in all respects!


III. The Expression, "Like a son of man."

Twice in Revelation (a Christian document), 1:13 and 14:14:


This corresponds to the designation in Daniel 7:13, which is surely its source and inspiration for these appearances of the term in Revelation.  This is not equivalent to "son of man" and Jesus never applied it to himself.  If he had, we would find him saying something like this:  I am not the Son of man, but I am only like a son of man. 

"Like a son of man" is exactly what the Christians need, so we find them honoring it in Revelations.  That is because it says, by implication, that Jesus, the Messiah, is not a son of man, but is only like, or similar to in some ways, a son of man.  The designation is therefore not only acceptable -- it is desirable to them, as indicating that Jesus of Nazareth, being (in their view) virgin born, was not a son of man among men, but was "like a son of man."  It is perfectly consistent with their Christology, but Jesus avoided it like the plague.

IV. Why do no references to Jesus as "son of man" (with only one exception, Acts 7:56) appear in the New Testament outside the utterances of the Lord?

This question requires some speculation because we have no specific answer from the lips of the Lord.  But then, we do not need such.  If we accept that the title, "Son of man" is an emphatic synonym for man, it becomes in translation, "son of Adam."  Indeed, the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament in use among Greek speaking disciples of Jesus in the First Century, translates Adam as anthropos.  It follows that every descendent of Adam is a "son of anthropos."  In the Gospels, the expression "son of man" therefore becomes "son of anthropos."  You can easily confirm this by checking a concordance or your Greek New Testament.

Jesus was, by means of this emphatic synonym, affirming himself as a "son of Adam."

At a very early time in the evolution of the church, Paul set forth his gospel that depends heavily on Jesus not being a son of man, or of Adam.  He wrote:

But that would not work if Jesus (Christ) were a son of Adam, for then he would also have suffered the same death as Adam; this statement would be self contradictory!  So it was that, at a very early date, Jesus' favorite designation for himself became anathema to the Paulinist scribes in the early church.  Nevertheless they were compelled to provide some explanation for his origins and to define his Christology.  It follows that they either omitted the term in their writing, or that they expunged it from epistles already written so as to make them acceptable to the Church and compatible with the popular doctrine of Paul.  That is a sufficient explanation for our not finding him so designated in the epistles, both Catholic and Pauline.  Yes, I have said this is speculation, but it is very strong speculation.

But if, as Paul and his disciples asserted,  Jesus was not a son of man (emphatic for man), what was he? 

A ready solution to this question was close at hand -- the many pagan deities who were virgin born.  Eo Ipso! Jesus became the virgin born son of God and the first two chapters of both Matthew and Luke were added to the gospels. They were unable to expunge the term from the gospels because it was and is guarded by the Holy Spirit, yet they sought to neutralize it by the doctrine of the virgin birth.

This explanation suggests and may even confirm two things:


V. The Son of Man Forever

On of the most significant things we can learn from our Lord's use of the term is that he never ceases to apply it to himself, calling himself yet "the son of man" at the Second Coming and at the Last Judgment, where it is as Son of Man that he sits upon his glorious throne.

We have, in addition, this amazing utterance in response to the question of the chief priest:

He has just affirmed that he is the Son of God (the Blessed one) and he might much more appropriately responded, "I am, and your will see the Son of God sitting at the right hand of power."

But no!  Instead, he clung to this identification as the Son of man even here when affirming himself as Son of God, which can only mean that the two terms are compatible.  This raises profound implications that are beyond the scope of this paper, and can only leave us marveling!  It seems a reflection of the Psalm:
This closely resembles messianic prophecy and perhaps it is but, in the mind of the Psalmist, it refers only to the human being, which he says is made "little less than God."

When we compare this with Jesus' statement,

It becomes very compatible with the teaching of Jesus as to his status relative to the Father, and as to his intimate identification with man, an identification that has not ceased now that he has ascended to the Father.


VI. The Light

I quoted this near the beginning:

Then I remarked that Jesus seemed to digress when he responded, seemingly changing the subject from "Son of man" to "Light."

Jesus did not digress here.  The Son of man was in the world as the Light of the world, and so he was and remains the original Son of Light.  Now, the promise of this utterance is that we, who are also sons (children) of men, may become sons of Light by believing the Light, as he is the first Son of Light who is also a son of man.


Conclusion

Christian doctrine magnifies the differences between man and God.  Jesus, with the Psalmist, minimizes the differences, making him "little less than God."  Even in eternity, he remains the Son of man.  It was not necessary for him to be virgin born to be Son of God, no more so than than it is necessary for you or I or any other human being to have been virgin born to become a child of God, because man is "little less than God."  When we become children of God, being born from above of the Spirit and the Word, we remain, like Jesus of Nazareth, "little less than God." Do not allow the material/spiritual distinctions to distort thinking here.  It is difficult for us to see ourselves as we are -- as spiritual beings created in the likeness of the Father, needing only the infusion of the Eternal Word to become his children in all respects even while we continue to abide in the flesh.  Remember what Jesus said?

Here, then, is what I believe: Jesus of Nazareth, the child of Joseph and Mary of Nazareth, was born a spiritual and intellectual prodigy.  This was not a supernatural event, no more so than the birth of an intellectual prodigy, such as Albert Einstein.  Jesus soon came to sense this and to understand his unique status.  From the beginning he was filled with an insatiable desire to know God and all things spiritual.  God in heaven, who had Himself been waiting (from a human point of view) for just such an one to appear among men, then sent his angels who, as with Ezekiel, lifted him up; but, unlike Ezekiel who was lifted between heaven and earth, they lifted this one all the way to heaven.  There God revealed Himself fully to this Son of man.  This accounts for Jesus' assertion that he was the only one who had ascended to heaven, hence the only man to have seen God.

Again, let us not be hung up on the material/spiritual distinctions.  I do not mean that the young Nazarene was physically lifted up to a place high in the skies.  I mean something much more significant than that.  Without physically leaving the earth, he ascended into the exalted "spiritual space" not of this creation, where the Father dwells and where he saw and knew God as his Father.  It was during this wonderful ascension that he received the Eternal Word from the mouth of the Father, and by which reception he became the Eternal Son of God, the first begotten.  Having received the spiritual and Eternal Word -- more than spiritual, but that is Spirit -- he loved the Father and desired only to remain in the Father's House.  But he knew, through the indwelling Word, that he must return as the Word, there to sow the Word in the hearts of humans who were to become the children of the Father in heaven through the willing reception of the Word.  This may be the significance of the event described at his baptism;

That was the point when the Word, as the Spirit of God, descended from heaven, and the experience of which Jesus spoke when he said,

There was this one difference between the First Begotten and the later begotten ones on the earth -- Jesus ascended to heaven to be begotten, then descended to earth that we might be begotten in the same way, through the Eternal Word that he published in the World.  He is the first begotten; he is not the only begotten.  He is the Son of man, he is the Son of God, and he is the Eternal Word by whom and through whom all things were made.