SonofManPaperATS

ASBURY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
THE SON WILL COME OUT TOMORROW:
A STUDY OF THE MEANING OF THE SON OF MAN IN
MATTHEW
A RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT PRESENTED TO
BEN WITHERINGTON III, Ph. D
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF BT 660
THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
JERRY BREEN
3 NOVEMBER 15

1
THE SON WILL COME OUT TOMORROW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section: Page:
Introduction 2
A. History of the Issue 2
B. Method of this Paper 5
I. The Public Proclamation 6
A. Literary Context 6
B. Intertextual Support 12
II. The Private Teaching on Suffering 14
III. The Private Teaching on Power 18
Conclusion 22
Bibliography 24

2
INTRODUCTION
There is a saying that if four scholars discuss a topic there will be six opinions. That is
the case with the scholarly debate concerning the title “the Son of Man” in the New Testament
gospels, the precise definition of which has eluded scholars for centuries. Even though there have
been bold declarations of some that the issue has been solved,1 scholars continue to debate the
meaning of this phrase with vigor. Each foray into this topic produces more questions to answer
as scholars strive for creative means to solve this conundrum. There are even scholarly debates
concerning whether or not this issue is solvable. Despite the lack of consensus, the debate
continues because this term is of crucial importance to understanding the character, nature, and
mission of Jesus. The amount of discussion reflects a recalcitrant optimism that a scholarly
consensus can be reached with further ruminations and expositions. It is in this spirit that the
present study is conducted. Studying the literary context of the Gospel of Matthew in detail,
while taking specific note of quotations, allusions, and imagery from the Hebrew Scriptures, can
illumine our understanding of how the author of Matthew used this term to communicate deep
truths. Before entering into this discussion it is important to preview the relevant interpretations
of “the Son of Man” in the gospels to date.
A. History of the Issue
Early interpretations of this term centered on the idea of literal human relationship. Most
scholars, following the works of Irenaeus and Tertullian, related this term to Mary and so
interpreted it as “the son of the human,” positing that Mary was the human from whom Jesus
literally came. This was the dominant understanding through Christian history, even finding
expression during the Reformation in the work of Martin Luther.2 Others, such as Athanasius,
Calvin, and Erasmus understood the term more generally as “the son of Adam” and applied it to
fulfilled prophecy from various passages in the Hebrew Scriptures, including Dan 7:13.3 Around
1 So Albert Schwietzer who boldly proclaimed in 1906, “Broadly speaking, therefore, the Son-of-Man problem is
both historically solvable and has been solved. The authentic passages are those in which the expression is used in
that apocalyptic sense which goes back to Daniel.” From Albert Schwietzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus,
trans. W. Montgomery (New York: MacMillan, 1966), 283.
2 Delbert Burkett, The Son of Man Debate (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 8.
3 Burkett, The Son of Man Debate, 9-10.

3
this same time a new explication for “the Son of Man” became prominent, that of “the son of
Joseph,” since Joseph was Jesus’ legal guardian.4
The dawning of the Reformation encouraged the study of the Aramaic and Hebrew
expressions of the term instead of the Greek and new possibilities were born. Zwingli and others
construed Son of Man as a general connection to humanity and interpreted the term as a simple
circumlocution for “man.” Following this logic further, scholars argued that the term carried the
sense of frailty and lowliness and emphasized Jesus’ connection with humanity both as
fulfillment of various passages in the Hebrew Scriptures and as a representation of human
vulnerability. This theory had the benefit of setting the Son of Man in contradistinction to
another popular title in the gospels, “the Son of God,” and garnered support from such scholars
as Heinrich Bullinger, David Kimchi, F. C. Bauer, and B. D. Eerdmans.5
While some viewed the “the Son of Man” as a title representing human weakness, others,
such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, interpreted this term as an indication of strength. As “the man”
Jesus could represent the entire human race as the first among many and become the ideal man
that others could follow.6 Augustus Tholuck, building on this concept, combined the idea of the
ideal man with the Messiah. Others, such as Christoph Luthardt and Vernon Bartlet, conflated
the Son of Man with Paul’s second Adam which indicated Jesus is the goal of human history.7
While scholars today claim various interpretations of the Son of Man, associating this term
predominantly with humanity has gained little traction since the end of the nineteenth century.
In contrast to the perception that the Son of Man was a title representing humanity, some
scholars contended the title was a direct allusion to Dan 7:13-14 where Daniel writes a vision of
one who was “like a son of man.” Martin Chemnitz ascribed to this theory during the
Reformation period and many others, such as Wessel Scholten and Friedrick Lucke, followed his
lead in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.8 Most scholars who held this view connected
the son of man from Daniel directly with the Messiah, which allowed scholars once again to
associate the Son of Man with human weakness and vulnerability. It was not until the Jewish
writing 1 Enoch was discovered and properly translated in the middle of the nineteenth century
4 Burkett, The Son of Man Debate, 11.

4
that a full understanding of “the Son of Man” as a heavenly, powerful figure emerged as a
prominent interpretation.9 Scholars also noted references to a similar son of man figure in 4 Ezra,
but most agree that 4 Ezra was probably written at a later date.10 Questions were raised
concerning the meaning of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch and the date of the later portion of the
writing, commonly called the Similitudes. While scholars such as W. Baldensperger, Johannes
Weiss, R.H. Charles, Wilhelm Bousset, and Albert Schweitzer applied the Son of Man in 1
Enoch, which describes a pre-existent heavenly messiah, to the gospel record, others took
exception to the claim, asserting that Judaism has no conception of a pre-existent messiah.11
Most scholars today affirm the Similitudes were most likely written before the ministry of Jesus
and may have influenced his worldview.12 Questions persist, however, concerning whether the
title “the Son of Man” was so prominently known during the ministry of Jesus that the reference
alone would have evoked thoughts of Dan 7:13-14.
Other relevant questions were raised during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
concerning the Son of Man, such as Jesus’ understanding of the title. Aramaic scholars studied
the meaning of the idiom in relevant material and came to different conclusions. Maurice Casey
decided the term referred to truths that are applicable to all people in general, Vermes found that
the idiom referred to truths of a particular person, and Lindars argued the term referred to a
special class of people to which the speaker belonged.13 Other scholars questioned whether the
phrase held any significance at all, positing this was simply a way for Jesus to refer to himself,
either cryptically, idiomatically, or proleptically. Larry Hurtado, argued that the term “the Son of
Man” was a third person reference on par with the first person reference, “I/me/my.”14 T. W.
Manson and C. F. D. Moule believed the term was a corporate reference.15 Julius Wellhausen
10 Sabino Chiala, “The Son of Man: The Evolution of the Expression,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, ed.
Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 173.
12 Darrell L. Bock, “Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forshungsbericht,” in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift, T
& T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series no. 11, eds.Darrell L. Bock and James H. Charlesworth (New York:
Bloomsbury, 2013), 112; James H. Charlesworth, “The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch,” in Parables
of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift, T & T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series no. 11, eds.Darrell L. Bock and James
H. Charlesworth (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 56.
13 Howard I. Marshall, “Son of Man,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds.Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight,
and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 779.
14 Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 293).
15 C.F.D. Moule, The Origin of Christianity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 20-21.

5
and Rudolf Bultmann averred that Jesus was referring to someone other than himself.16 In order
to discover the historical Jesus there are additional debates concerning which Son of Man
sayings are authentic to Jesus and which are additions by the church. This deductive speculation
assists scholars who, once settled on a position that is unable to account for all the sayings,
substantiate their position by choosing certain sayings as unauthentic.17
B. Method of this Paper
It is striking the degree to which these theories are based on historical background, much
of which is currently unknowable with any degree of certainty, and how little these conclusions
account for the literary unity of the gospels themselves. Rather than pursuing that course of
inquiry, this study will investigate the literary context of the Gospel of Matthew, pregnant as it is
with quotations, allusions, and imagery from the Hebrew Scriptures, to ascertain more precisely
the definition of “the Son of Man” as presented in the gospel. Studying every reference from the
Hebrew Scriptures associated with the Son of Man is an original avenue of study, one which
yields important contributions to this discussion. While the author of Matthew uses Mark and Q
as important resources for his Son of Man sayings, he intentionally adds his own sayings, along
with quotations and allusions from the Hebrew Scriptures, to portray vivid imagery of the Son of
Man coming back in power for eschatological salvation and judgment. This powerful,
authoritative Son of Man engages with people polemically to intentionally reshape their
understanding of the Messiah. As a way of ordering the material, this study will follow the three
recognized categories of Son of Man sayings: the public proclamation, the private teaching about
suffering and resurrection, and the private teaching about future eschatological power. Through
this study we will discover the particular thread of commonality that runs throughout these
references.
17 There has been discussion for some time about which of the three categories of Son of Man sayings are authentic
to Jesus.For example, Eduard Schweizer, who believed the Son of Man represented the weakness and humanity of
Jesus,argued extensively that the only authentic Son of Man sayings belong to those related to his earthly ministry
in Eduard Schweizer, “The Son of Man,” JBL 79 (1960): 120-122; Albert Schweizter, by contrast,argued that only
the apocalyptic sayings were authentic, Schweizter, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, 283; Barnabas Lindars, who
believed the Son of Man was a self-reference, asserts that the apocalyptic sayings were a “literary process,”
intimating they were not authentic, Barnabas Lindars, Lindars, Jesus, Son of Man, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1983), 130. As with otherscholars, their arguments for authenticity substantiate their definition of the term.

6
I. THE PUBLIC PROCLAMATION
A. Literary Context
The term “the Son of Man” is referenced thirty times in the Gospel of Matthew, all of
which are attributed to Jesus. That Jesus is the only one who uses this term is significant because
throughout the gospel people refer to Jesus by various titles and names, but never as the Son of
Man. At the same time, Jesus resists using other titles and at times admonishes people to not
reveal his identity (Matt 9:30; 12:16; 16:20). Because Jesus uses this title frequently as a self-
designation, Hurtado suggested that the Son of Man “clearly functioned to some degree
interchangeably with the first-person pronoun in the handing on of Jesus sayings.”18 The author
of Matthew, however, is not reticent to use the simple pronouns to refer to Jesus. In the gospel
Jesus refers to himself as “I” about one hundred times (with many additional references to “me”
and “my) and refers to himself emphatically (with the Greek first person pronoun ἐγὼ) an
additional eighteen times. The references to the Son of Man are scarce in comparison to first
person references, which suggests that this term was used by the author intentionally in order to
indicate something specific. This point is strengthened when one considers the number of
prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures Jesus fulfilled as the Son of Man.19
How did the original hearers understand this self-designation? The recent groundswell of
study surrounding 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra has led many scholars to conclude that Jewish people in
the first century had a highly developed idea that the Son of Man referred to the “one like a son
of man” in Dan 7.20 These Jewish writings certainly reflect similar applications of the Daniel
passage to each other and the Gospel of Matthew.21 This theory is strengthened by the mention
of Daniel in Josephus, where he says ‘the books which he wrote and left behind are still read by
18 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 305.
19 Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress,1986), 96.
20 So Bock, “Did Jesus Connect,” 112; Charlesworth, “The Date and Provenance,” 56; Chiala, “The Son of Man,”
167; Adela Yarboro Collins, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” in Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 105; Ben Witherington III, The Many Faces of Christ: The Christologies of the New
Testament and Beyond (New York: Crossroad, 1998), 17; Daniel Boyarin, “How Enoch Can Teach Us About
Jesus,” Early Christianity 1 (2011): 52; James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making:A New Testament Inquiry
into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 66.
21 For discussion on the relation between Matthew and The Parables of Enoch see Chiala, “The Son of Man,” 167-
168, where compelling reasons are given for connecting the author of Matthew’s understanding ofthe term with that
in 1 Enoch.John J. Collins agrees with Sabino on this point: John J. Collins, “Enoch and the Son of Man: A
Response to Sabino Chiala and Helge Kvanig,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 216.

7
us even now…”22 and is further strengthened by the abundance of fragments of Daniel found at
Qumran.23 Despite this evidence there are significant reasons why this theory should be rejected.
For example, although Josephus wrote a commentary about Daniel in the first century, he writes
little about the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14.24 Also, while the book of Daniel was
read and studied by the Jewish people in the first century, many scholars argue that there was no
concept of the Son of Man as a known title connected to Messiah or in any other sense.25 In
addition, no fragments of the Similitudes of Enoch have been discovered at Qumran despite the
fact that no less than eleven copies have been discovered of the first half of 1 Enoch.26 This
would argue for a later date. While these are chiefly arguments from silence, they are pertinent
arguments against the alleged popularity of the Son of Man in the first century. In addition to
these arguments, it must be remembered that the Son of Man concepts in the Similitudes and 4
Ezra are not independent concepts but are both built upon an exegesis of Daniel 7.27
The most significant evidence against the theory that Jewish people would understand the
term “the Son of Man” as a reference to Dan 7:13-14 is found within the literary context of the
Gospel of Matthew itself. While it is certainly plausible, even probable, that the author of
Matthew and his community knew of the writings of 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, and without doubt
connected the Son of Man with Dan 7, the author makes no indication in the gospel that Jews
during the ministry of Jesus connected this title to Dan 7:13. As a matter of fact, the author may
have intentionally intimated that people did not make this connection. For example, the first two
references in the gospel to the Son of Man are self-references that Jesus speaks while talking to
the scribes (Matt 8:19; 9:3), the very people who should have recognized the connection to Dan
7:13. And yet not only do they make no indication of recognizing the term during those
22 Josephus,Antiquities10:267.
23 Witherington III, Many Faces of Christ, 53.
24 Josephus,Antiquities 10:267-283.
25 Lindars, Jesus, Son of Man, 11; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 296; Richard Bauckham, “The Son of Man: ‘A Man
in My Position’ or ‘Someone,” JSNT 23 (1985): 28; Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 45-46; Llewellyn
Howes, “To Refer, Not to Characterize’: a Synchronic Look at the Son-of-Man Logia in the Sayings Gospel Q,”
HTS Theological Studies 69 (2013): 10; Ulrich Luz, “The Son of Man in Matthew: Heavenly Judge or Human
Christ,” JSNT 48 (1992): 8-9. Maurice Casey, “Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in the Similitudes of Enoch,” JSJ 7
(1976): 29.
26 Lindars, Jesus, Son of Man, 5.
27 Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 45-46.

8
incidences, their ignorance of this connection continues throughout the gospel.28 The Jewish
leaders do not associate this term with Jesus until Jesus boldly forces this connection by quoting
Dan 7:13 when he is being questioned by the high priest (Matt 26:64). Jesus’ claim to be the Son
of Man may have offended the religious leaders more than Jesus’ assent to the titles “Messiah”
and “Son of God” which they were using to indict him for blasphemy and treason. The author of
Matthew appears to have mentioned the scribes to emphasize this ignorance.
The lack of recognition of the title is again elucidated when Jesus inquires about the
people’s understanding of the Son of Man (16:13). The disciples give multiple answers but none
belie any suspicion of a mighty divine figure to whom is given all authority on earth, as is
described in Dan 7. They instead reference John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the
prophets (16:14). When Jesus presses the disciples for their understanding of who he is, Peter
avers that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, to which Jesus replies affirmatively and declares
this epiphany was not revealed by human exegesis but by a revelation of God. The author’s
rendition of this scene is significant because although he is building on Mark’s writing, the
author changes the question from “Who do people say that I am?” (Mark 8:27, τίνα με λέγουσιν
οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι;) to “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matt 16:13, τίνα λέγουσιν οἱ
ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;) indicating that the author of Matthew wanted his
readers to contemplate the identity of the Son of Man while emphasizing the ignorance of the
disciples.29 Jesus affirms rather than corrects Peter’s epiphany, which connects his identity as
Son of Man to Messiah and Son of God. The fact that Jesus is never identified by others in the
gospel as the Son of Man when he is identified by various other titles (Son of God, Messiah, Son
of David, Rabbi, Lord) is another clue that people did not recognize the importance of the title.30
The author of Matthew, then, emphasizes the ignorance of the Jews, the Jewish leaders,
and the disciples regarding the meaning of the Son of Man. This indicates the term was
innocuous for the original hearers, one in which Jesus could assign significance according to his
28 Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (MN: Fortress Press,1998), 546;
trans. James Bowden of Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch, (Göttingen: Vandenhoech & Ruprecht, 1996).
Theissen and Merz note that the term is never disputed by the hearers.
29 Bornkamm suggest that the reason Matthewfor the change from Mark to Matthew is that Matthew is not as
invested in the Messianic secret motif. So Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition
and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: Westminster), 47; trans. by Percy Scott, Überlieferung und Auslegung
im Matthäusevangelium (Great Britain: SCM Press Ltd, 1963). This may well be true, for the shift emphasizes the
difference between the two authors.Matthew is more intentional about illustrating the identity of the Son of Man.
30 Jack Dean Kingsbury. “The Figure of Jesus in Matthew’s Story: A Literary-Critical Probe,” JSNT (1984): 25.

9
nature and mission. Most of the initial references to the Son of Man in Matthew are spoken in
public as an explanation for the earthly ministry of Jesus. The hearers would naturally harken
back to the use of the phrase in the Hebrew Scriptures where, even in Dan 7:13, it was a
designation for human beings in contrast to the greatness of Yahweh. As such, the hearers would
have originally thought of human weakness or a general connection with humanity. The author
of Matthew, however, was not content to leave that impression for long. Rather we find in
Matthew that the phrase in polemical contexts as Jesus demonstrates his authority in contrast to
humanity. Luz affirms this point when he says, “Almost all of the public sayings about the
earthly son of man are in a polemical context. The only exception is 8.20. This logion is
indirectly polemical; its context is the first separation between the disciples who embark with
Jesus to the other shore of the lake and the people remaining on the shore.”31 In Matt 8:19-20 a
scribe approaches Jesus and pledges his loyalty to follow Jesus wherever he wends. Jesus
informs him that the Son of Man has no permanent residence. Commentators typically
emphasize Jesus’ humanity and weakness in this scene but that would only be the case if Jesus
was complaining about his lack of material goods. Considering Jesus’ cynical outlook toward the
wealthy in the gospel (c.f. Matt 6:21; 10:9; 19:23-24), this interpretation is unlikely. Instead
Jesus’ attention is focused on the spiritual condition of the scribe, so he emphasizes the cost of
discipleship to one who might consider whether they will follow Jesus with as much aplomb as
they have suggested. The cost is high and the sacrifice is great for anyone who would follow
Jesus. The Son of Man is powerful enough to live without a permanent residence on earth. This
idea comports with the personification of Wisdom found in I En. 42:1-3 where pre-existent
Wisdom is also characterized as being unable to find a home among people.32 Far from
portraying Jesus in terms of weakness and vulnerability, this connection with personified
Wisdom would emphasize the power of Jesus in contrast to the people around him. Shortly after
this incident, when the disciples respond to Jesus’ miracles by asking “What kind of man is
this?” (Matt 8:27) it is evident they are not exegetically applying Daniel 7:13 to Jesus’ reference
to the Son of Man.33
31 Luz, “The Son of Man in Matthew,” 6.
32 Ben Witherington III and Laura M. Ice, The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical
Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 78.
33 Kingsbury, Matthew as Story,97.

10
Matthew next mentions the Son of Man in 9:6 where Jesus heals a man to evidence his
authority to forgive sins. Through the dull lenses of modern exegetical glasses scholars dully cite
this as a reference to Jesus’ earthly ministry then move on with their analysis. In the Gospel of
Matthew, however, the crowds are awestruck and glorify God for giving such authority to a man.
The power to forgive sins is only conceivable of God, a point the scribes understood well and so
accused Jesus of blasphemy. Jesus clearly uses the Son of Man as a self-designation to exhibit
authority in the midst of a polemical situation.
In Matt 11:19 Jesus contrasts the perceived lifestyles of John the Baptist and himself in
an indictment against their common critics. This mention seems innocuous enough on the surface
but a deeper study of context reveals quite the opposite. For example, after his statement Jesus
says that wisdom is vindicated by her deeds, which again connects the title “the Son of Man”
with wisdom, this time more overtly. This statement is almost certainly a reference to the
personification of Wisdom from I En. 42, Prov 1-9, Wis 7-10, and Sir 1, 16, and 24.34 If Wisdom
is vindicated by her deeds, then Jesus, as Wisdom, has proven himself vindicated (Matt 11:4-5).
In addition, Jesus cites this self-reference in a polemical context. He begins by contrasting John
the Baptist favorably to the corrupt Herod Antipas (Matt 11:7-8)35 and then criticizes the Jewish
leaders before denouncing specific cities for not repenting of their sins despite his divine witness
through miracles (Matt 11:20-24). While the conversation may seem benign at first, the greater
context suggests it is not.
Matthew 12 displays a theme of authority. Jesus is greater than the temple (Matt 12:6)
because he correctly interprets the law (Matt 12:6-8), and is greater than Solomon (Matt 12:42)
because he produces lasting healing (Matt 12:40). These points contrast the inability of the
Pharisees to the ability of Jesus. In Matt 12:8 Jesus invokes the title “the Son of Man” while
chastising the Pharisee’s interpretation of the law, claiming rather that he understands the proper
application of the law better than the Pharisee’s themselves. Once again the term is cited in a
polemical context in order to assert Jesus’ authority. In Matt 12:40 Jesus is exasperated with the
Pharisees and the scribes because of their belligerent request for a sign of his authority. Instead
of performing yet another miracle, Jesus portends that the Son of Man will be in the heart of the
earth, a reference to his impending death and resurrection. Jesus’ authority is established in his
34 Witherington III, Many Faces, 17-18.
35 Ben Witherington III, Matthew (Macon, GA: Smyth & Hewlys, 2005), 232.

11
condemnation of the Jewish leaders and indeed the entire generation for their lack of repentance
(Matt 12:39-42). The reference to Solomon speaks to Jesus’ power to heal since it was largely
believed that Solomon was known for his wisdom and power for healing. Being greater than
Solomon indicates that Jesus is a greater healer than Solomon and, since Solomon used his great
wisdom to heal people, provides another allusion to Wisdom personified.36
In contrast to the majority of the public proclamations of Jesus as the Son of Man which
occur in the first few references in the Gospel of Matthew, the final public proclamation comes
at the last mention. In Matt 26:65, Jesus is captured and hauled before the high priest and Jewish
council to be formally accused of wrongdoing and sentenced. The polemical nature of this scene
cannot be mistaken. The author of Matthew portrays the frustration of the Jewish leaders as they
strive without success to present condemning evidence of guilt. Jesus’ silence provides an
insurmountable obstacle until he acquiesces to their inquiry and provides them with the evidence
they have been seeking. Interestingly, the high priest demands to know whether Jesus claims to
be the “Messiah, the Son of God.” An admission would presumably prove Jesus was
blasphemous. The author makes it clear that Jesus provides them with that admission and much
more: Jesus is the Son of Man who rides on the clouds in heaven and will judge all people. The
author of Matthew relates this account from the gospel of Mark, a favorite source, but changes
the scene slightly. In Mark Jesus boldly admits that he is the “Messiah, the Son of the Blessed”
but in Matthew Jesus allows a more subtle admission by asserting “you have said.” The force of
the scene is shifted to his answer, where Jesus evokes the Son of Man title along with quotes
from Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1. Where Daniel 7 was probably not yet a definitive messianic
reference, Ps 110:1 may well have been.37 The force of Jesus’ answer is not lost on the Jewish
leaders who immediately condemn Jesus to death based solely on this blasphemous answer.
Again the Son of Man asserts his authority over people in a polemical context, even if that
authority is yet to be realized. So while some scholars view Jesus’ public proclamations about
the Son of Man in Matthew as examples of weakness, the context of Matthew argues that the Son
of Man sayings were situated in polemical contexts where Jesus demonstrated his power and
authority over people, either now or in the future.
36 Witherington III, Matthew,249.
37 R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew,in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 851-852. France argues that for those,like Jesus,who assigned authorship of this
psalm to David, the messianic overtones were evident from passages such as Matthew22:42-45.

12
B. Intertextual Support
The Gospel of Matthew is saturated with scripture references that provide
quotations, allusions and images from the Hebrew Scriptures to inform the reader about the
identity of Jesus. The Son of Man title is informed in like manner. One of the first such
references is found in Matt 11:19 where Matthew compares the Son of Man with John the
Baptist. Just prior to this reference Jesus proclaimed that the law and the prophets culminate with
John (Matt 11:13) and John is the Elijah who was to come (Matt 11:14). The mention of Elijah
comes from Mal 4:5-6 where, understood in light of Mal 3:1, the prophet declares that Elijah will
come before the day of the Lord to prepare the way. This prophecy became an expected
occurrence among Jews in the first century, as the Gospel of Matthew makes clear (Matt 17:10;
27:47-49).38 Malachi 4:5-6 may allude back to Exod 23:30 where Yahweh sends an angel to
guard the Israelites.39 The context of Malachi predicts a time when fathers will turn their hearts
towards their children, which signifies a time of repentance similar to what John the Baptist was
urging of the people. Blomberg notes Jesus’ reference demonstrates that “a typological use of
God sending a special messenger to prepare the way for a key event in the salvation history of
his people is repeating itself.”40 Here Jesus teaches that John is the forerunner for the day of the
Lord, a day of eschatological salvation and judgment. While Matthew does not enunciate this
theme of salvation and judgment in this context, he will build upon this idea of the Son of Man
coming in eschatological judgment as the gospel progresses.
Another reference is Matt 12:8, where Jesus defends his disciple’s lack of obedience to
the Pharisaic law by asserting that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. Immediately before
this claim Jesus quotes from Hos 6:6 to substantiate his accusation that the Pharisees do not
properly interpret the law. In Matt 9:13 Jesus told the Pharisees to “go and learn” what Hos 6:6
actually means. In Matt 12:8 Jesus laments that they have not learned their lesson. In order to
properly understand this reference it is important to explore the context of Hos 6, where the
people have experienced the judgment of Yahweh and are acknowledging their sin.41 The people
have repented and turned back to Yahweh, who will raise them to new life on the third day (Hos
38 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 431.
39 Blomberg, “Matthew,” 39.
41 Andrew J. Dearman, The Book of Hosea, in The New International Commentary of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 189.

13
6:2). Yahweh substantiates his judgment with the proverb that Jesus quotes in Matt 9:17 and 12:7
to explain that just as the Jews in Hosea’s day, the Pharisees have placed peripheral loyalty to
cultic ritual over required devotion.42 Whereas Yahweh was the one to judge in Hosea, Matthew
portrays the Son of Man as the judge of right and wrong. As Viljoen rightly argues, “This forms
part of Matthew’s broader argument that Jesus is the authoritative and definite interpreter of the
Torah… As Son of man Jesus does not break the Sabbath law, but claims to have the authority to
interpret it in a way that undercuts the legalism of the Pharisees.”43 This authority is emphasized
by Jesus’ proclamation that something better than the temple is here (Matt 12:6) which refers to
Jesus himself. The author of Matthew cited Hebrew Scriptures to emphasize the power of the
Son of Man who has greater authority than the Pharisees to interpret the law.
Matthew 12 continues with Jesus healing two men, an act which inspires the crowds to
wonder if Jesus is the Son of David (meaning Solomon, the great healer) while the Pharisees
proclaim that his power comes from Beelzebub, ruler of the demons. When the scribes and
Pharisees ask Jesus to give them a sign, Jesus replies by foretelling that just as Jonah was in the
belly of the fish three days (Jonah 1:17) so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for
three days and three nights, a reference not only to his death, but also to his resurrection, which
is the ultimate display of power.44 Jesus then declares that the people of Nineveh will stand with
“this generation” at the judgment because they repented. He further declares that the Queen of
Sheba will likewise stand with “this generation” at the judgment because she sought Solomon’s
wisdom (1 Kgs 10:1). Jesus alludes to these passages to aver that the rejection of Jesus’ ministry
by the Jews is so egregious that they will be judged by Gentile seekers. It is significant to note
that both Hosea and Jonah were set in the context of judgment by Yahweh for wrongdoing.
In the final public proclamation of the Son of Man in Matt 26:65, Jesus references both
Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1. Daniel 7 will be discussed at length later in the paper but a word about
Ps 110 is in order. This psalm is a royal psalm describing the installation of the king. Mays
describes the significance of the ceremony by saying, “In the culture in which it was used, the
office was far more than a position; it was a status in the very order of things which endowed a
42 Dearman, The Book of Hosea, 196-197.
43 Francois J. Viljoen, “Hosea 6:6 and Identity Formation in Matthew,” AcT 1 (2014): 230.
44 Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds.G. K. Beale
and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 45.

14
person with identity and powers.”45 Jesus has previously referenced this verse in Matt 22:44 to
elucidate an inconsistency in the Jews thinking, who had clearly conflated the concept of the Son
of David with the lord mentioned in Ps 110:1. If the Messiah is the Son of David as they have
claimed (Matt 22:42) then how could David call the Messiah Lord? In other words, the Messiah
should be understood not only as greater than Solomon, who was the Son of David, but greater
than David himself, since David calls him “Lord.” Witherington suggests as much when he
explains, “It is best to say that Jesus is repudiating the adequacy, not the accuracy, of assessing
the Messiah by means of his Davidic descent. The point is that in Jesus’ view the Messiah is
more than, not other than, Son of David.”46 In Matt 26:64 Jesus likewise assents to the title of
Messiah placed upon him but determines the meaning himself by referencing the Son of Man
and quoting Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1.47 The Jewish leaders may have authority for judgment now
but it is Jesus who will have the greater power of judgment for all eternity. This understanding
combines with the previous teaching that Jesus has greater authority than the Jewish leaders to
interpret the law and perform healings, this time to denote his greater authority in judgment. The
author of Matthew, then, has used many passages from the Hebrew Scriptures to allude to the
fact that Jesus has the right to judge right and wrong in the present and is the future
eschatological judge of all people. Far from these passages emphasizing the vulnerability and
weakness of the Son of Man, they instead affirm the power of Jesus in the present and future.
II. THE PRIVATE TEACHING ON SUFFERING
A. Literary Context
Following Peter’s epiphany that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, Jesus explains to
the disciples that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer, be killed, and be raised on the third day
(Matt 16:21). The gospel describes certain scenes in which Jesus specifically takes time to
explain this suffering in private to his disciples, such as when they were gathered together in
Galilee (Matt 17:22), when they begin their journey to Jerusalem (Matt 20:18, 28), when they
were in Jerusalem for the Passover (Matt 26:2, 24), and when they were in the Garden of
45 James L. Mays,Psalms, in Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 351.
46 Witherington III, Matthew,420-421.
47 Withering III and Ice, The Shadow of the Almighty, 80; George Eldon Ladd, New Testament Theology,Revised
Edition, ed. Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 157.

15
Gethsemane (Matt 26:45). Even after these times of instruction the disciples are taken
completely unawares when the persecution begins in earnest.
If an argument can be made that the Son of Man should be interpreted as a figure of
human weakness and vulnerability it is when Jesus associates the title with his suffering, death,
and resurrection. After all, suffering brutal physical punishment as a criminal before all of
Jerusalem surely is the height of human weakness and vulnerability. What has placed Jesus in
such a vulnerable position? He is not being punished for human weakness; his conviction is
based on the admission to the Jewish leaders that he is the Son of God and Son of Man (Matt
26:64-65) and the apparent admission to the Romans that he is the King of the Jews (Matt
27:11). Rather than succumbing to human weakness, Jesus demonstrates his authority over
human weakness and sin by accomplishing the task his Father gave him. Kingsbury argues this
when he says, “In the suffering Son-of-man sayings, Jesus evinces his authority by freely going
the way of the cross in obedience to the will of God.”48 Why did Jesus subject himself to harsh
treatment when he knew he could abandon the mission any time by summoning legions of angels
to his cause (Matt 26:53)? His mission was to obediently give his life as a ransom for many
(Matt 20:28). Jesus’ dedication to the mission regardless of the cost demonstrates the Son of
Man’s authority more than human vulnerability or weakness.
In addition, Jesus’ private presentation of the mission of the Son of Man was polemical
for the disciples because it cut against their understanding of what the mission of the Messiah
would look like. While they now understood that Jesus was the Messiah (Matt 16:13-20), they
had no previous conception of a Messiah who would suffer and die as a criminal.49 They have
sacrificed all to follow Jesus and now must comprehend what his impending suffering and death
signify for them. Were they wrong to follow him? The disciples display a complete lack of
understanding and composure despite Jesus’ warning that there would be suffering and death, but
also be resurrection (Matt 16:21; 17:22; 20:18). The Son of Man sayings that comport with
suffering do not end in suffering, but in the ultimate power of God, evidenced by the earthquake,
the tearing of the veil and the resurrection of those who had died (Matt 27:51-53). The author
then offers the greatest evidence of power with the resurrection of Jesus, who had experienced
48 Kingsbury, Matthew as Story,100.
49 Ben Witherington III, The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament,
vol. 2 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 246; Witherington III, Many Faces of Christ, 49; Ladd, New
Testament Theology,154.

16
the depth of human weakness and frailty through death only to rise to the height of divine power.
The disciples did not understand the full implications of Jesus’ mission until they discovered his
empty grave and realized what Jesus had been teaching them all along.50
The author of Matthew alludes to the fact that the suffering, death, and resurrection
occurs to fulfill prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures (Matt 26:24, 53) but does not specifically
reference any passage in direct connection to the Son of Man. This allows interpreters to ponder
possible relevant passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that illumine this title. The author of
Matthew elucidates clear connections to Ps 22 through both allusion (Matt 27:35, 39) and by
quotations (Matt 27:43, 46) during the crucifixion scene. The author also quotes Zech 11:12-13
and Jer 32:6-9 (Matt 27:8-10) and alludes to other passages, such as the rejected cornerstone in
Ps 118:22,51 the ransoming of friends in Ps 49:7-9 (Matt 20:28),52 and the rejection of friends in
Ps 41:9 (Matt 26:24).53 To what additional references might the author be referring?
There is a strong connection between the descriptions of Jesus’ suffering and that of the
suffering Servant in Isa 40-55. The author of Matthew quotes from these chapters in the gospel
(Matt 3:3; 8:17; 12:18-21), including instances indirectly associated with the Son of Man. For
example, in Matt 8:17, which comes immediately before the first mention of the Son of Man, the
author of Matthew tells of how Jesus healed all who were ill before quoting Isa 53:4 to
demonstrate that Jesus was fulfilling the content of the Servant Song. In Isa 53:4 the Servant had
previously been portrayed by weakness and illness but Isaiah reveals he carried the infirmities of
others instead of his own. Oswalt notes “The language of carrying and bearing sets the stage for
the substitutionary understanding of the Servant’s suffering… The Servant is not suffering with
his people (however unjustly), but for them.”54 In the same way, Jesus has come to heal all who
are ill (Matt 8:16). The readers of Matthew first hear about the Son of Man with that scene fresh
in their minds (Matt 8:20), making it likely that they would conceptually associate the Son of
50 Craig S. Keener, The Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2014), 127-128.
51 Marshall, ”Son of Man,” 776.
54 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 386.

17
Man with the Servant from Isa 53:4. Similarly, the reference in Matt 12:18-21 is placed between
the Son of Man references in Matt 12:8, 32, and 40. The purpose of this quotation is given by the
author, who uses Isaiah to connote that Jesus fulfills prophecy when he confronts the Pharisees
with regard to the Sabbath law. Not only does Jesus heal people on the Sabbath day but he will
heal all who come to him (Matt 8:15). Isaiah 42:1-4 tells of the Servant who will bring justice to
the nations through judgment as the world waits for his instruction.55 Jesus demonstrates justice
for the people by healing their infirmities and judgment on the Pharisees by resisting their
interpretation of the law. The scope of the justice and judgment of the Servant, which extends
throughout the whole earth and encompasses both Jews and Gentiles (Isa 42:4), far outstrips the
narrow application of the Pharisees.
One further scripture passage worthy of note in the context of Jesus’ private teaching on
suffering is Dan 7. In this passage Daniel presents four beastly empires that are represented by
specific kings who preside over them. Afterward, one like a son of man appears and is given an
everlasting dominion on behalf of the saints of the Most High who are suffering persecution
(Dan 7:18-21, 25). It could be inferred from context that “the one like a son of man” would also
experience persecution on behalf of the saints since he is their representative.56 Ultimately,
however, the Ancient of Days passes judgment on the fourth beast and its leader and the one like
a son of man and the saints of the Most High receive authority over all in the everlasting
kingdom (Dan 7:21-127). This is a powerful image of judgment and authority that, as will be
shown, the author of Matthew will repeatedly connect to Jesus as the Son of Man.
Jesus’ reference to resurrection alludes to Hos 6:2, the context of which Jesus recalls
twice for his audience (discussed above), and Dan 12:1-3, which is “the clearest OT reference to
the resurrection of the saints.”57 J. J. Collins argues that Dan 12:1-3 portrays a scene of judgment
when he says, “This interpretation provides an attractive parallel to Dan 7, where the climactic
scene is also judicial and the motif of heavenly books is also found. A judgment is certainly
implied in the following verses.”58 This is significant because it continues a pattern established
by the author of Matthew of quoting or alluding to passages from the Hebrew Scriptures where
Yahweh is judging people to illuminate the meaning of the Son of Man (Mal 4, Hos 6, Jonah 1,
55 Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters40-66, 110-112.
56 Marshall, “Son of Man,” 776; Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 50.
58 J.J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 390.

18
Isa 53, Dan 7, 12). The author of Matthew adds to these previous references citations that
specifically explain resurrection. While the Son of Man may have a mission of suffering and
death now, he will be raised from the dead and given authority over all the world. Through his
resurrection power his followers, too, will be raised. Matthew did not quote scriptures in direct
connection with the Son of Man but the indirect connection between these scriptures and Jesus’
mission of suffering, death, and resurrection is persuasive.
III. THE PRIVATE TEACHING ON POWER
A. Literary Context
The Son of Man sayings which most obviously portray authority occur during Jesus’
private teachings to his disciples about the future coming of the Son of Man in power. As many
have noted, Jesus uses this title in connection with his earthly ministry, his impending death and
resurrection, and his future coming in power, which demonstrates the coherence of the title in the
life of Jesus.59 As such, interpreters should resist the urge to compartmentalize the sayings into
definite, unrelated sections and instead notice the continuity in the way Jesus uses this title. For
example, the first mention of the Son of Man to the disciples occurs when Jesus expounds upon
his instructions for evangelism as they go through the towns of Galilee (Matt 10). Jesus
admonishes them to continue from city to city until the Son of Man comes, even if they
experience persecution. The imagery of persecution combined with the coming of the Son of
Man are allusions to Dan 7 where the saints of the Most High are persecuted until they, along
with the “one like a son of man,” receive the everlasting kingdom (Dan 7:13-27). While most of
the references to the Son of Man in Matthew come from his source materials of Mark and Q, this
particular verse, along with others with similar imagery, are mentioned only in Matthew. When
the passages which are unique to Matthew are examined it becomes clear that the author of
Matthew wanted his audience to understand the connection between Jesus as the Son of Man and
“the one like a son of man” from Dan 7:13.
For example, in Matt 13 Jesus tells a parable original to Matthew about the tares and then
explains the meaning to the disciples. The parable describes angels under the command of the
59 Birger Gerhardsson, “The Christology of Matthew,” in Essays on Christology:Who Do You Say That I Am?, eds.
Mark Allen Powell and David R. Bauer (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 20; Kingsbury, Matthew
as Story, 98; Luz, “The Son of Man in Matthew,” 18.

19
Son of Man gathering up all the wicked and consigning them for eternal judgment (Matt 13:41-
42). The scene comports well with the apocalyptic vision of Dan 7 which is also a scene of
eschatological judgment (Dan 7:26-27). The author of Matthew assigns the role and authority of
Yahweh to the Son of Man when he speaks of the Son of Man as the sower of seed who
commands angels.60 Matthew 19:28, another original Son of Man saying in Matthew, describes
Jesus once again encouraging the disciples concerning the steep cost of discipleship with a
reminder that in the end the Son of Man, and the disciples themselves, will sit on glorious
thrones. This reference is probably an allusion to Dan 7:9 where the Ancient of Days sits on the
heavenly throne as he hands over all authority to the one like a son of man. In Matt 25:31-32,
also original to Matthew, Jesus expounds upon a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven by
explaining that the Son of Man will come in glory with the angels and sit on his glorious throne
to judge the righteous and the wicked, imagery clearly drawn from Dan 7:13-27.
Matthew also includes vivid imagery from Dan 7 in material shared by Mark and Luke.
In Matt 16:27 Jesus first explains to the disciples the steep cost of discipleship and then
encourages them with a reminder of the eschatological judgment at the second coming. The Son
of Man is said to come in the glory of his Father which is reminiscent of the relationship of the
Ancient of Days and one like a son of man in Dan 7. A final passage where Jesus mentions the
Son of Man with vivid imagery is Matt 24:30-31, where he elucidates the significance of the end
times for his disciples. There we find: 1) the Son of Man comes on the clouds, 2) the Son of Man
comes with great power and glory, and 3) the Son of Man sends forth angels. When the literary
context from each of these Son of Man occurrences are considered as a whole it is apparent that
the author of Matthew has intentionally woven the imagery from Dan 7 with the Son of Man
sayings so his readers would not misunderstand the meaning and significance of the term, which
represents a powerful Son of Man to whom has been given authority over all.
The literary context of Matt 16:13-20 has been discussed previously in this paper but
there is an important point that needs to be made. In this scene, which holds great significance to
the structure of the gospel as a whole,61 Jesus inquires of the disciples who people say the Son of
Man is in general, and then inquires more specifically as to whom they think he is. When Peter
60 John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew,in The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 559-560.
61 For more information on the importance of this passage for the structure of the gospel see David R. Bauer, The
Structure of Matthew’sGospel: A Study in Literary Design (Decatur, GA: Almond Press, 1988), 11-13.

20
declares that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, Jesus accepts this acclamation and affirms it
by confirming that Peter received a revelation from God (Matt 16:17). Jesus likewise is
comfortable enough with the high priest’s designation as the Messiah, Son of God as to clarify,
but not correct, the titles (Matt 26:63-64). This self-understanding of Jesus, that he is the Son of
Man, the Messiah, and the Son of God, elucidates the connection between John the Baptist and
the forerunner of the Messiah (17:9-10). The Hebrew Scriptures suggest that Elijah will come
before the end time and Jesus tells the crowds that John is that Elijah who was to come (Matt
11:14). The scribes also recognize this connection (Matt 17:10), as do the disciples, and Jesus
once again embraces the tradition and relates it to John the Baptist. John has already faced a
brutal fate at the hands of the government and Jesus wants the disciples to understand that he will
suffer a similar fate. Despite this, Elijah will come again (Matt 17:11) and will usher in the day
of the Lord as promised by the prophet, a day when the Son of Man will return in the glory and
power of his Father. The private teaching of the Son of Man is polemical in the sense that Jesus
himself is boldly claiming to be that divine agent of Yahweh who will come again as judge to all.
While the Dan 7 imagery is certainly the strongest witness in the private teachings of the
powerful Son of Man, there are other quotations and allusions from the Hebrew Scriptures that
also help us understand what Jesus intended by this title. Matthew 10:21 harkens back to Mic 7:6
where the prophet warns Yahweh’s people that the rampant godlessness will lead to the
breakdown of family structures. Just previous to this description Micah delivered the sentence of
Yahweh’s judgment for the people’s wickedness (Mic 6:13-15). As Leslie Allen explains, “They
have amassed such liability that he can only intervene in terrible judgment.”62 Jesus quotes this
verse to warn his disciples that many will reject his message and his followers. As judgment has
fallen on the people in Micah’s day so judgment will also fall on those who reject Jesus’
followers while those who are faithful will be saved (Matt 10:22). Matthew 16:27 quotes from Ps
62:12 where the psalmist praises Yahweh for exhibiting lovingkindness by repaying people
according to their deeds. This accords with Jesus’ overall portrayal of the Son of Man as one
who will judge the deeds of both the wicked and righteous. The coming of the Son of Man in
62 Leslie C. Allen, The Booksof Joel, Obadiah,Jonah, and Micah, The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 379.

21
glory in Matt 16:27 may also allude to Zech 14:5 which describes the day of the Lord when
Yahweh will come to earth with all his holy ones to enact judgment on the nations. Instead of
Yahweh judging the nations, however, in Matthew it is the Son of Man who will enact judgment.
This judgment scene is also reminiscent of Ps 28:4 and Prov 24:12.63 The disciple’s inquiry
about Elijah in Matt 17:10-11 alludes to the prophecy in Mal 4:5, discussed above, which
portends the sending of Elijah before the day of the Lord. The author of Matthew has already
established that John precedes Jesus in some special way (Matt 3:11) and here Jesus again
affirms that John is the forerunner of the day of the Lord. Matthew’s audience would understand
from these references that the Son of Man plays an important role in the day of the Lord.
In Matt 24:27-44 Jesus uses the Son of Man designation often when expounding upon the
nature of his second coming. During this teaching Jesus uses a “constellation of allusions” from,
Gen 7:6-23, Isa 34:4, Ezek 32:7, and Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15, and Zech 9:14; 12:10.64 He alludes to
these passages to illumine certain aspects of his future coming. For example, in Matt 24:37-44
Jesus uses the story of Noah to describe the immediacy of his coming. Just like in the days of
Noah, no one will expect the impending eschatological shift that will occur in the moment that
Jesus comes back. Some people will be taken for judgment and others will be left behind. After
this explanation of future salvation and judgment, the author connects Jesus’ teaching directly
with the day of the Lord (Matt 24:42). As with the previous passages quoted or alluded to from
the Hebrew Scriptures, these passages work together to portray the future coming of the Son of
Man to earth for eschatological judgment.
One final passage from Jesus’ private teaching about power strengthens this point. In
Matt 25 Jesus relates parables to his disciples concerning the Kingdom of Heaven. The final
parable concludes with the Son of Man coming in glory with his angels and sitting on a throne.
The Son of Man then separates the sheep who will proceed to eternal life, from the goats who
will proceed to eternal punishment. This verse certainly has shades of the judgment scene of
Zech 14:5, except that the author of Matthew has once again assigned the function of Yahweh to
the Son of Man.65 The most overt application of this imagery of eschatological judgment, other
than the aforementioned Dan 7, is Ezek 34:17-22. In Ezek 34-48 the prophet delivers restoration
63 Blomberg, ”Matthew,” 55.
64 Blomberg, “Matthew,” 86-87.
65 Holland, The Gospel of Matthew, 1024.

22
oracles after having previously condemned the nations with woe oracles. Despite the hopeful
tone there are pockets of judgment, such as Ezek 34:17-22, where Yahweh addresses his people
as a flock of sheep and goats and warns them that judgment will come upon them for the
disrespectful ways they have treated each other. This imagery and theological application
accords well to Matt 25:31-46 where the Son of Man will judge people according to their
generosity for other people. As with previous sections, Jesus’ private teaching about power
selects various passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that describe scenes of judgment. Whether
one examines Micah 7:6, Zech 14:5, Ps 28:4, Prov 24:12, Mal 4:5, Gen 7:6-23, or Ezek 34:17-
22, the message is clear: the author of Matthew wants his readers to understand that Jesus as the
Son of Man is the one who will judge the righteous and the wicked. Whereas in the Hebrew
Scriptures Yahweh will judge the nations, in Matthew it is the Son of Man who will judge.
CONCLUSION
While scholars continue to debate the precise meaning of the title “the Son of Man,”
insisting that the expression represents weakness and vulnerability as a human descendent66 or
that Jesus only has Dan 7:13-14 in mind when he specifically quotes from that passage,67 this
study has demonstrated in both the literary context of the Gospel of Matthew and the scripture
references from the Hebrew Scriptures that throughout Matthew Jesus intentionally used the Son
of Man in a polemical way to demonstrate his authority.68 While initially this was an innocuous
term in the ears of Jesus’ various audiences, Jesus immediately and consistently applied it in
ways that elucidated his definition, which spoke of authority over interpretation of the law,
healing, human weakness, death, and sin through the eschatological judgment. The author of
Matthew intentionally draws from the imagery in Dan 7, such as coming in clouds, sitting on
thrones, directing angels, suffering persecution, and judging people, to demonstrate the authority
of the Son of Man, an authority evinced during his ministry and mission on earth and to be fully
realized in the future. To substantiate this portrait of Jesus, Matthew references a plethora of
66 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 305; Casey, “Use of the Term ‘Son of Man,’” 28-29.
67 Darrell L. Bock, “Did Jesus Connect Son of Man to Daniel 7?: A Short Reflection on the Position of Larry
Hurtado,” BBR 22 (2012): 400; Bauckham, “The Son of Man,” 28; Lindars, Jesus, Son of Man, 16.
68 The argument for a unifying theme of authority throughout the three types of Son of Man sayings is not new. This
idea was argued by H. E. Todt and Morna Hooker (Burkett, The Son of Man Debate, 49-50) and more recently by I.
Howard Marshall as presented in I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology,2nd ed. (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 77.

23
Hebrew Scriptures throughout the gospel to establish the role of the Son of Man as judge of
people in the same respect that Yahweh was known as the judge of people. This connection is
especially substantiated by quotes or allusions from Mal 7:5, Mic 4:5, Hos 6:1-6, Dan 12:1-3, Ps
62:12, Zech 14:5, Isa 53:4, Gen 7:6-23, and Ezek 34:17-22, but other passages illumine this
connection as well. These quotations and/or allusions occur in all three strata of Son of Man
sayings in Matthew (public proclamations, private teaching on suffering, and private teaching on
power) and reinforce the literary context that demonstrates the authority of Jesus both during his
ministry and after his resurrection. The Son of Man will come again, and when he does all will
stand before him for examination.
While this study has helped to illumine the definition of the Son of Man, particularly in
the Gospel of Matthew, future research could explore the connection between the Son of Man
and the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew, a connection that is stronger in Matthew than the other
gospels. Another possible research avenue could study the ways Son of Man relates to the
understanding of the early church and explain why this term is so sparsely mentioned in early
church literature. Because the Son of Man title clearly evokes authority, the early church may
have attached other meanings, such as Lord or Son of Adam, to the title. Or perhaps following
the resurrection of Jesus his followers realized that Jesus used the Son of Man title to redefine
their understanding of who the Messiah was to be all along.69 If this is true then the meaning of
this title was never abandoned, for the early church worshipped one called Jesus Christ.
In John 12:34, which represents the only reference in the gospels to the Son of Man not
on the lips of Jesus, the people ask Jesus, Who is the Son of Man? Surely what follows is the
answer on which scholars can build their understanding of this term. But Jesus, instead of
answering the question directly, expounds upon the importance of walking in the light rather
than walking in the darkness. The ambiguity of his answer may indicate that he was not ready to
give them, or us, an answer at that time. And so we continue to debate the possibilities. Perhaps
that is why for every four scholars who equivocate about the Son of Man, we tend to find six
opinions.
69 Keener, The Bible Background Commentary,127.

24
Bibliography
Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Son of Man: 'A Man in My Position' or 'Someone.'” JSNT 23 (1985):
23-33.
Bauer, David R. The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Decatur, GA:
Almond Press, 1988.
Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48. The New International Commentary on the
Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
Blomberg, Craig L. “Interpreting Old Testament Prophetic Literature in Matthew: Double
Fulfillment.” TJ 1 (2002): 17-33.
_______________. “Matthew.” Pages 1-109 in Commentary of the New Testament Use of the
Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2007.
Bock, Darrell L. “Did Jesus connect Son of Man to Daniel 7?: A Short Reflection on the Position
of Larry Hurtado.” BBR 22 (2012): 399-402.
_____________. “Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forshungsbericht.” Pages 58-113 in Parables
of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift. T & T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series no. 11.
Edited by Darrell L. Bock and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Bornkamm, Günther, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held. Tradition and Interpretation in
Matthew. Philadelphia: Westminster. Translated by Percy Scott. Überlieferung und
Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Great Britain: SCM Press Ltd, 1963.
Boyarin, Daniel. “How Enoch Can Teach Us About Jesus.” Early Christianity 1 (2011): 51-76.
Burkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Society for New Testament
Studies: Monograph Series 107. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Caird, G. B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980.
Casey, Maurice. “Use of Term 'Son of Man' in the Similitudes of Enoch.” JSJ 7 (1976): 11-29.
Charlesworth, James H. “The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch.” Pages 37-57 in
Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift. T & T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series no.
11. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Bloomsbury,
2013.

25
Chiala, Sabino. “The Son of Man: The Evolution of the Expression.” Pages 153-178 in Enoch
and the Messiah Son of Man. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2007.
Collins, Adela Yarboro. “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament.” Pages 90-123 in
Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993.
Collins, John J. “The Son of Man in First Century Judaism.” NTS 38 (1992): 448-466.
____________. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993.
____________. The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.
Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988.
Dearman, J. Andrew. The Book of Hosea. The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the
Doctrine of the Incarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.
Foster, Paul. “The Pastoral Purpose of Q's Two-Stage Son of Man Christology.” Bib 1 (2008):
81-91.
France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989.
__________. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.
Gerhardsson, Birger. “The Christology of Matthew.” Pages 14-32 in Essays on Christology: Who
Do You Say That I Am? Edited by Mark Allan Powell and David R. Bauer. Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999.
Harris, Mark. “The Comings and Goings of the Son of Man: Is Matthew's Risen Jesus 'Present'
or 'Absent'? A Narrative-Critical Response.” BibInt 1 (2014): 51-70.
Heliso, Desta. “Enoch as the Son of Man: Contextual and Christological Considerations.” Svensk
Missionstidskrift 2 (2010): 141-155.
Hooker, Morna D. “The Son of Man and the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 189-202 in The Four
Gospels. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, C.M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden.
Leuven, Belgium: University Press, 1992.

26
Howes, Llewellyn. “'To Refer, Not to Characterize': a Synchronic Look at the Son-of-Man Logia
in the Sayings Gospel Q.” HTS Theological Studies 69 (2013): 1-12.
Hurtado, Larry. Lord Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2003.
Josephus. Translated by Henry St. J. Thackery et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1926-1965.
Keener, Craig S. The Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. 2nd ed. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014.
_____________. Matthew. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL:
Intervarsity Press, 1997.
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. “The Kyrios in Matthew’s Gospel.” JBL 94 (1975): 246-255.
__________________. “The Figure of Jesus in Matthew's Story: A Literary-Critical Probe.”
JSNT (1984): 3-36.
__________________. Matthew as Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Kuhn, Karl A. “The 'One Like a Son of Man' Becomes the 'Son of God.’” CBQ 1 (2007): 22-42.
Ladd, George Eldon. New Testament Theology. Revised Edition, Edited by Donald A. Hagner.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.
Lindars, Barnabas. Jesus, Son of Man. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984.
Longman, Tremper III. Daniel. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1999.
Luz, Ulrich. “The Son of Man in Matthew: Heavenly Judge or Human Christ.” JSNT 48 (1992):
3-21.
Marshall, Howard, I. The Origins of New Testament Christology. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1990.
________________. Jesus the Savior: Studies in the New Testament Theology. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
________________. “Son of Man.” Pages 775-781 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.
Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1992.
Mays, James L. Psalms. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

27
Moloney, Francis J. “Constructing Jesus and the Son of Man.” CBQ 4 (2013): 719-738.
Moule, C. F. D. The Origin of Christology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Greek Testament Commentary.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66. The New International Commentary on the
Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
Reynolds, Benjamin E. “The 'One Like a Son of Man' According to the Old Greek of Daniel
7:13-14.” Bib 1 (2008): 70-80.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Translated by W. Montgomery. New
York: MacMillan, 1966.
Schweizer, Eduard. “The Son of Man.” JBL 79 (196): 119-129.
Shepherd, Michael B. “Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man.” WTJ 1 (2006): 99-111.
Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. MN: Fortress
Press, 1998. Translated by James Bowden. Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch.
Göttingen: Vandenhoech & Ruprecht, 1996.
Viljoen, Francois P. “Hosea 6:6 and Identity Formation in Matthew.” AcT 1 (2014): 214-237.
Witherington, Ben III, and Laura M. Ice. The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in
Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
Witherington, Ben III. The Many Faces of Christ: The Christologies of the New Testament and
Beyond. New York: Crossroad, 1998.
_________________. Matthew. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys. 2006.
_________________. The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the
New Testament. Vol. 2. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010.
Wright, N. T. The Challenge of Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Zacharias, H Daniel. “Old Greek Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew's Son of Man.” BBR 4 (2011):
453-465.
Zehnder, Markus. Why the Danielic 'Son of Man' is a Divine Being.” BBR 24 (2014): 331-347.

SonofManPaperATS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to SonofManPaperATS

Similar to SonofManPaperATS (16)

SonofManPaperATS