This article is a follow-on from my previous article, ‘Did Yeshua think of himself as the messiah?’
One of the most common assumptions in Paullist Christian theology, is that when Yeshua referred to himself as “the Son of Man”, he was openly and irrefutably claiming to be the messiah. This assumption, however, rests on a misunderstanding of how the phrase functioned linguistically in Hebrew and Aramaic — the language in which Yeshua actually taught.
In Semitic languages, the expression translated as “son of man” (bar nasha in Aramaic, ben adam in Hebrew) does not have a single meaning. Like many idioms, its meaning depends entirely on context. Treating it solely as a fixed messianic title imports later theological bias into earlier texts — by Greek-speaking gospel-writers who were not able to pick up on the nuances of Semitic languages.
Understanding these different meanings helps clarify what Yeshua was — and was not — claiming about himself.
1. “Son of Man” simply means “a human being”
At its most basic and most commonly used level, bar nasha / ben adam just means a human being or a mortal. This usage is common in the Miqra (e.g. throughout Ezekiel, in Daniel 7:13, Mk 2:28, Mt 12:32).
A key example is Daniel 7:13, where the prophet sees “one like a son of man”. The phrase simply means “one who looks human”, in deliberate contrast to the animal-like empires portrayed symbolically earlier in the vision. Importantly, Daniel later explains what this vision actually means: the “son of man” represents “the holy ones of the Most High” (Daniel 7:18) — the ’son of man’ symbolically represents a collective group (a perfected humanity which is faithful to God), not a single messianic figure.
This point matters, because later interpretations, especially in Christianity, treat Daniel 7 as a clear messianic prophecy. In the Miqra itself, it is not a messianic prophecy — it was the Enochian Jewish community (the writers of the Book of Enoch) who turned it into one.
Example:
“The son of man is lord even over the Sabbath” (Mk 2:28) means, “Humanity has dominion even over the Sabbath”.
2. “Son of Man” as a humble way of saying “I”
In Aramaic, bar nasha is often used as a modest or indirect way of referring to oneself — rather like saying “this person” instead of “I”. This kind of self-reference avoids drawing importance to oneself, and fits naturally into a culture that valued humility (e.g. Mk 8:31, 9:9, 9:31, 10:33, 10:45, 14:41; Mt 8:20, 11:19, 12:40, 13:37, 17:12, 26:2; Lk 6:22, 19:10, 22:48).
Many of Yeshua’s sayings make the most sense in this way. When he speaks of the “son of man” being rejected, suffering, betrayed, or having nowhere to rest, these statements read smoothly as: “I, as a human being, will experience these things.”
Reading these sayings instead as grandiose messianic declarations often creates theological drama where none is intended or needed — and in fact clashes with Yeshua’s consistent emphasis on humility and self-effacement.
Example:
“Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20) means, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but I have nowhere to lay my head.”
3. “Son of Man” as an indirect reference to someone else
Aramaic also uses bar nasha to mean “someone” or “that person”, or “that fellow“, without naming them directly. While this usage clearly does not survive in the Greek Gospels, it further shows that the phrase was flexible, mundane and ordinary — not automatically a messianic title.
Again, this undermines the idea that every occurrence of the term must refer to a messianic role.
4. Where the messianic meaning actually comes from
A truly messianic use of “Son of Man” does exist — but it does not come from the Miqra. It appears most clearly in the Book of Enoch, a Jewish work from the mid- to late 2nd century BCE, in which “the Son of Man” becomes a heavenly, pre-existent figure who judges the world at the apocalypse. It became a given meaning; it was not an inherent meaning.
This particularly Enochian reinterpretation of Daniel 7 was influential in later Jewish and early Christian thought. Over time, it became absorbed into Christian theology and applied retroactively to Yeshua. The Enochians used the term to refer to the messiah as an apocalyptic end-times judge.
The problem is that this meaning represents a later development, not the original or commonly used sense of the phrase in Hebrew or Aramaic.
In the Synoptic Gospels, Yeshua seems to be referring to someone else as ’the Son of Man’, possibly the Enochian idea of a son-of-man-type messianic judge. Whether this is Yeshua’s genuine speech or simply words put into his mouth by the gospel writers, we cannot say; if the writers of the gospels had been influenced by Enochian messianic theology, they could easily have put words into Yeshua’s mouth in order to ’prove’ their beliefs (e.g. Mt 10:23, 13:41, 16:27, 24:27, 24:30, 24:37, 24:44, 25:31, 26:64).
Example:
“For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man“ (Mt 24:27), means, “For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the messianic end-times judge“.
5. The problem of translation: Aramaic into Greek
Yeshua taught in Aramaic, but the Gospels were written in Greek — a language that lacks any equivalent expression to bar nasha. As a result, a flexible Aramaic idiom became frozen into a fixed, monolithic Greek phrase: “ο υιος του ανθρωπου“, (ho huios tou anthropou), “the Son of Man”.
Once fixed, the phrase naturally invited reinterpretation as a title. Matthew and Luke, in particular, seem to lean into this and associate it with apocalyptic expectation. In some passages, Yeshua even appears to speak of “the Son of Man” as someone other than himself (for example, Matthew 10:23; 16:27; 24:30; 25:31).
Example:
“When they persecute you in this town, flee to the next, for truly I tell you, you will not have finished going through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes“ (Mt 10:23; if in other statements, Jesus fully expected to die, he cannot have been expecting this Son of Man figure to have been himself — that is, if he really did make statements such as this).
Within a Massorite Talmidi framework, this strongly suggests that:
- Yeshua was not consistently identifying himself as a messianic “Son of Man”, and
- later Gospel writers, being unfamiliar with Aramaic idioms, and having been influenced by Enochian theology, may have misunderstood or reinterpreted ordinary Aramaic speech through later theological lenses.
6. What this means for understanding Yeshua
When the linguistic evidence is taken seriously, the phrase “son of man” does not prove that Yeshua believed himself to be the biblically-defined messiah. In many cases, the opposite is true: the sayings only make sense if the phrase is understood as humble self-reference, or as a general statement about human experience.
This fits well with the Massorite Talmidi understanding of Yeshua as a Yahwist tribulation-prophet and ethical teacher — someone who was calling Israel back to faithfulness to God’s covenant, rather than someone claiming to fulfil the full messianic expectations of the Miqra.
Conclusion
The phrase “son of man” is a small expression with large consequences. When stripped of later theological assumptions, and instead returned to its original Semitic setting, it loses much of the messianic weight later imposed upon it. What remains is something far more consistent with Yeshua’s teaching style: humility, humanity, and moral urgency.
Careful attention to language does not weaken faith — it strengthens it by anchoring interpretation in historical and cultural context, and in textual honesty. For Massorite Talmidis, this approach safeguards fidelity to the Miqra, while allowing Yeshua’s own human, Aramaic-speaking voice to be heard clearly, without later doctrinal distortion.
Summary: The Meaning of “Son of Man” at a Glance
• “Son of Man” (bar nasha / ben adam) is a flexible Semitic expression, not a fixed title.
It can mean “a human being”, “that fellow”, or function as a humble way of saying “I”.
• In the Miqra itself, it is not a messianic title.
Daniel 7:13 describes “one like a human being”, later explained as representing “the holy ones of the Most High” (Daniel 7:18), not a single messiah.
• Yeshua most often uses the phrase humbly or generically.
Many sayings make best sense if “son of man” means “I” or “a human being”, rather than any claim to messiahship.
• The messianic “Son of Man” only comes from Enochian tradition.
This interpretation developed after the Miqra, and was later absorbed into Christian theology.
• Translation into Greek froze a flexible Aramaic idiom with a single messianic meaning.
What was natural and ambiguous in Aramaic, with numerous meanings (polysemous), became a fixed monosemous phrase in Greek, inviting later theological reinterpretation.
• There is no clear evidence that Yeshua claimed to be the biblically-defined messiah using this term.
In some passages, he even appears to refer to “the Son of Man” as being someone other than himself.
Conclusion:
Understanding “Son of Man” in its original linguistic and cultural context supports the Massorite Talmidi view of Yeshua as a Yahwist tribulation-prophet and ethical teacher, rather than a self-proclaimed apocalyptic messiah.
Appendix: Frequently Asked Questions
1. What languages did Yeshua actually speak?
Yeshua primarily taught in Aramaic, with some knowledge of Hebrew for reading scripture, and possibly some basic conversational Greek for daily interaction. The Gospels, however, were written in Greek, which radically affects how his words are preserved, understood and interpreted.
2. What does bar nasha literally mean?
In Aramaic, bar nasha literally means “son of a human”, but idiomatically it often means simply “a human being” or “a person” (i.e. “a fellow”, “a guy”, or in British English, “a bloke”).
3. Is “son of man” ever a messianic title in the Miqra?
No. In the Miqra, the phrase is descriptive, not titular. The idea of “the Son of Man” as a distinct messianic figure comes from later literature, especially the Book of Enoch.
4. Why is Daniel 7 often misunderstood?
Daniel 7 uses symbolic imagery. While later interpreters focus only on verse 13, Daniel himself explains the vision in verse 18: the “son of man” represents the faithful people of God collectively (”the holy ones of the Most High”), not an individual messiah.
5. Did Yeshua ever clearly say “I am the messiah”?
In the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke), Yeshua does not clearly or consistently identify himself as the biblically-defined messiah who fulfilled the Davidic and post-exile restoration prophecies.
6. Why do Matthew and Luke sound more messianic than Mark?
Matthew and Luke draw more heavily on apocalyptic and Enochian language, and they may not have fully grasped the nuances of Aramaic idioms when translating or interpreting Yeshua’s words.
7. Does this interpretation deny Yeshua’s importance?
Not at all. In Massorite Talmidaism, Yeshua is honoured as an important Jewish prophet, teacher, and moral reformer, whose calling was to summon Israel back to faithfulness to YHVH and the ethics of the Miqra. As a prophet, he was a mouthpiece for God, giving weight to his words; he warned of the coming tribulation, but also brought the good news of God’s Kingdom.
8. Why does this matter theologically?
Because misunderstanding language leads to misunderstanding identity. Clarifying what Yeshua meant helps prevent later theological ideas from being imposed on and read back into earlier texts — a key concern in Talmidi hermeneutics.