Early in the biblical tradition, it appears that “Son of Man” was a euphemistic term for a human. “God is not a man who lies, or a son of man who changes his mind! Does He speak and then not do it, or promise and not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19). Again in Isaiah 51:12, “I, I am the One who comforts you. Who are you that you should fear man, who dies, or a son of man, who is given up like grass?” These passages are an essential starting point for understanding this title. As the meaning may shift, it ultimately won’t deviate entirely from its original meaning

This sense of “Son of Man” began to shift during the Babylonian exile, especially in the writings of the prophet Ezekiel, where the term appears  97 times in reference to a single individual: Ezekiel. Part of what makes Ezekiel’s prophecy unique is its feature of symbolic acts.

“Go, shut yourself in your house. You, son of man, behold, ropes will be put on you.You will be bound with them, so that you cannot go out among the people.” –Ezekiel 3:24b-25

“Now you, son of man, take a brick and lay it before you. Engrave on it a city, Jerusalem.” –Ezekiel 4:1

Ezekiel became a literary and metaphorical stand-in for Israel, specifically righteous Israel. He embodied God’s message that those who were about to endure the suffering of the exile would be preserved and ultimately restored.

As the Jews continued in exile and noticed things like the language of the “suffering servant” prophecy in Isaiah 53, which shifts between singular and plural conjugations, this term took on a deeper context. This evolution of “Son of Man” is first envisaged in the Book of Daniel, “I was watching in the night visions. Behold, One like a Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days, and was brought into His presence” (7:13). This is the first place that the term assumes a Messianic context, though not at the expense of its previous representative context. Consider Daniel 8:17, “He came near to where I was standing, and as he approached I was terrified and fell on my face. But he said to me, ‘Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end.’” Not unlike Ezekiel, Daniel emerged as a representative of his people. In his case, he expressed this reality through his intercession and appeal, inquiring as to why the redemption from exile had been delayed.

Through the “intertestamental period” and into the time of the New Testament, the problem of exile remained. Though the people were back in their land, the promise of the Divine Presence, restoration of the Kingdom, the glory in the Temple, and the outbreak of God’s true justice had not occurred. We see this reality in the works 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Barukh, 4 Ezra, and even extends into the Rabbinic Era in the Talmud, Sandhedrin 97.

Jesus then stepped into this milieu and employed the title for Himself…

“Yeshua tells him, Foxes have dens and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.’” –Matthew 8:20

“But so you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to pardon sins…He tells the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your cot and go home.” –Matthew 9:6.

“For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then ‘He will repay everyone according to his deeds.’” –Matthew 16:27

By utilizing this terminology, Jesus aligned Himself with the “people of the saints of the Most High” (Daniel 7:27). In other words, in taking on this title, He regarded Himself as the one who summed up Israel’s vocation and destiny. He was the one in and through whom the real return from exile would come about, and indeed, was already coming about. He was the Messiah

Now, when we look at the title “Son of God,” we see that it has a somewhat similar trajectory. The idea is first applied to Israel as a whole, as we see in the following passages:

You are to say to Pharaoh, “This is what Adonai says: ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn.’” –Exodus 4.22 

Then I Myself said: “How gladly would I make you sons and give you a pleasant land— the most beautiful inheritance of the nations!’ I thought you would call Me—Avi!— and would not turn from following Me.” –Jeremiah 3:19

Regarding these two verses, the Malbim¹ explains that a king was at one with the people. This means that a king, at least a righteous king, did not occupy himself merely with his concerns but with those of the people. On a symbolic level, he embodied the entirety of the Israelite nation. This sensibility takes on greater intensity during the intertestamental period—particularly as attested in Qumran—when people read these texts with a Messianic meaning (though it was still very much seen as metaphorical).

However, many Jews of the first century believed that the “Son of Man” and “Son of God” were two very different individuals because they embraced a “dual Messiah” theology. The “Son of Man” fulfilled a priestly and sacrificial role, removing the sin of the people. Contrastingly, the “Son of God” fulfilled a kingly role in re-establishing the kingdom and bringing about justice. Jesus took both roles into Himself, as described in Matthew 16 (see above). While this understanding is implicit in the Synoptic Gospels, it becomes explicit in John chapter 1 and the first half of the letter to the Hebrews. Therefore, it is apt to say that the titles have different backgrounds and meanings and, thus, in and of themselves, are not synonymous. Yeshua HaMashiach embodied the priest and king, fulfilling both titles and recapitulating them in Himself.

¹ Highly regarded and innovative 19^th century Rabbi and scholar.