A Closer Look at The Scriptures (ISR) Explanatory Notes — “Son of Adam”
Why This Entry Matters
Few titles in Scripture are as theologically rich—and as Christologically decisive—as “Son of Man.”
It is Jesus’ preferred self-designation in the Gospels and a title loaded with meaning drawn from Daniel, Ezekiel, and the Psalms.
At stake in how this phrase is handled are questions of:
- Jesus’ identity
- His authority and divine role
- the continuity between Old Testament prophecy and New Testament fulfillment
- whether Christ is merely human—or the exalted figure of Daniel 7
Because of that, explanatory notes dealing with “Son of Man” or “Son of Adam” are not minor linguistic clarifications. They directly shape how readers understand who Jesus claims to be.
This post evaluates the ISR explanatory note on “Son of Adam” using linguistic, historical, and theological lenses, and then asks a pastoral question:
Does this explanation illuminate the biblical meaning of the title—or does it quietly flatten one of Scripture’s most important Christological claims?
What the ISR Note Claims
The ISR explanatory note makes several key assertions:
- The phrase “Son of Man” was initially avoided due to perceived paganism in the English word man
- The Hebrew word adam can mean both a proper name and “man”
- The Hebrew word enosh also means “man”
- The Aramaic phrase bar enash in Daniel 7:13 means “son of man”
- The phrase does not refer to Adam as a proper name
- Therefore, “Son of Man” is best understood as “son of Adam” or simply “man”
- The Greek New Testament uses anthrōpos rather than Adam when translating the phrase
- ISR translates the phrase in a way meant to avoid pagan or doctrinal bias
On the surface, this appears to be a careful, data-heavy linguistic study.
In reality, it narrows the theological force of the title in a way Scripture does not support.
Linguistic Evaluation: Is “Son of Man” Merely a Human Descriptor?
It is true that:
- Adam, enosh, and anthrōpos can all mean “man”
- Bar enash in Aramaic literally means “son of man”
But the ISR note makes a critical error by treating literal meaning as exhaustive meaning.
Literal Meaning ≠ Theological Function
While “son of man” can generically mean “human,” Scripture does not use the phrase generically when applied to Jesus.
Context determines meaning—and in key passages, the context is unmistakably messianic and exalted, not merely anthropological.
Daniel 7:13 — The Missing Centerpiece
The ISR note references Daniel 7:13 but fails to account for how the New Testament uses it.
In Daniel 7:
- “one like a son of man” comes with the clouds of heaven
- he is given authority, glory, and an everlasting kingdom
- all nations worship/serve him
This is not a generic human figure.
It is a divine-human ruler, distinguished from the beasts and exalted alongside the Ancient of Days.
When Jesus repeatedly calls Himself “the Son of Man,” He is not merely saying “I am human.”
He is claiming Daniel 7 authority.
The New Testament confirms this reading:
- Jesus cites Daniel 7 directly before the high priest (Mark 14:62)
- The response is not confusion—it is a charge of blasphemy
That reaction makes no sense if “Son of Man” merely means “son of Adam.”
Historical Evaluation: How Did the Early Church Understand This Title?
From the earliest period:
- Jewish audiences understood “Son of Man” as a loaded, prophetic phrase
- Early Christians consistently interpreted it in light of Daniel 7
- Church fathers treated the title as evidence of both Christ’s humanity and exaltation
There is no historical record of:
- debates about pagan contamination of the phrase
- attempts to replace it with “son of Adam”
- concern that the word man compromised theology
The problem the ISR note is trying to solve did not exist historically.
What the Note Does Not Say (and Why That Matters)
The ISR note does not explain that:
- Jesus uses “Son of Man” in contexts of judgment, glory, and authority
- the title functions as a self-revealed messianic claim
- reducing it to “human” weakens its prophetic force
- the phrase intentionally balances humility and exaltation
By focusing almost entirely on lexicons and word counts, the note misses narrative theology.
And when narrative theology is ignored, Christology is flattened.
Theological Evaluation: Why This Is Not a Neutral Translation Choice
This explanatory note fits a broader ISR pattern you’ve already identified:
- suspicion of traditional renderings
- concern over “doctrinal bias”
- preference for linguistic minimalism
- avoidance of theological synthesis
The result is not neutrality—it is reduction.
When “Son of Man” becomes primarily:
- “son of Adam”
- “a man”
- “mankind”
then the title’s role in revealing Jesus as the Danielic Son of Man is diminished.
That weakens:
- His self-identification
- His authority
- His eschatological role
Subtly, but significantly.
Why This Note Is Pastorally Risky
The danger here is not that readers will deny Jesus’ humanity.
The danger is that they will:
- miss the weight of Jesus’ claims
- read His words too small
- see Him primarily as a Torah teacher rather than the exalted Son of Man
- lose sight of why His claims provoked such opposition
This kind of reduction rarely feels heretical.
It feels academic.
A Biblically Faithful Way to Handle This Note
A responsible explanatory note would say something like:
While “son of man” can generically mean “human,” Jesus’ use of the title intentionally draws from Daniel 7, where the Son of Man is given divine authority and an everlasting kingdom. The New Testament consistently applies this title to Jesus in a uniquely messianic sense.
That preserves both linguistic honesty and biblical theology.
Final Assessment
Is “son of man” linguistically capable of meaning “human”?
Yes.
Does Scripture use the title that way when applied to Jesus?
No.
Does the ISR note understate the Danielic and messianic weight of the phrase?
Yes.
Does this contribute to a broader pattern of theological flattening?
Yes—consistently.
This is not merely a word-study entry.
It is a Christological pressure point.
Leave a Reply