“You shall see greater things than that…. You shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” 

“Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to Himself (12x in John; 66x in the Synoptic Gospels). The term comes from Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel sees one like a Son of Man who approaches the Ancient of Days, who gives to Him an everlasting kingdom.

Since Jesus refers to these verses at His trial to testify to the high priest that He is coming again in power and glory (Matt. 26:64), there may be an allusion in John 1:51 to the second coming.

Leon Morris (pp. 172-173) points out four reasons that Jesus adopted this term for Himself.

First, it was a rare term without nationalistic associations. People would not view Him as a political Messiah.

Second, it had overtones of divinity (because of its connection with Daniel 7:13-14).

Third, He adopted it because it implies the redeemed people of God.

Fourth, it had undertones of humanity.

Morris says (ibid.) “He took upon Him our weakness. It was a way of alluding to and yet veiling His messiahship, for His concept of the Messiah differed markedly from that commonly held.” The term is always associated either with Christ’s heavenly glory or with the salvation He came to bring.”

The title “Son of man” was used at least forty times by Jesus, twelve times in this Gospel; and, with the exception of Stephen’s use of it (Acts 7:56), it is found only in our Lord’s reference to himself. There are two questions of the deepest significance that arise from Jesus’ use of this title: (1) did he use it in such a manner as to diminish his claim of absolute divinity? and (2) why did he favor this title as distinguished from “Son of God,” which was more popularly associated generally with the coming Messiah?

The answer to the first question is an emphatic negative. Jesus meant by the title “Son of man” to affirm his deity and Godhead just as dogmatically as the title “Son of God” could have done it, but with the additional advantage of stressing his unique relationship to the human race as well. It is evident that THE Son of man cannot be any mortal being. Dummelow pointed out that the Greek words so translated cannot mean “A Son of man,” but definitely and emphatically, “THE Son of man.”^[58]

In this conversation with Nathaniel, it is evident that Jesus intended the title “Son of man” to be understood in exactly the same sense as “Son of God.” This follows from the fact that, taking the conversation as a whole, the two titles are used synonymously and interchangeably, without any suggestion whatever that Christ rejected either “Son of God” or “King of Israel” as being properly applied to himself. It is as though our Lord had said, “Yes, Nathaniel, you are correct; but for the present, let us use the title Son of man.”

Why did Jesus prefer this title? “Son of God” was a title that carried with it; in the popular mind, the meaning King of Israel, a fact proved by Nathaniel’s usage of the two together just a moment before; and it would have been disastrous for the Lord to have allowed the multitudes to crown him “king,” a thing many of them were eager to do. It was clearly for the purpose of preventing such a thing that Jesus so often used the other title, “Son of man,” a title which was not generally known and understood by the people and which was thus free of the connotation of an earthly kingship of Israel. It was absolutely imperative for our Lord to have avoided any semblance of claiming the literal Solomonic throne of Israel; for, if he had been unsuccessful in such avoidance, the Pharisees might have been able to get him crucified for sedition. It will be remembered that that is exactly what they tried to do anyway; but so completely had Jesus thwarted them, that they finally admitted to Pilate that they desired his condemnation for claiming to be the Son of God (John 19:7). However, if Jesus had permitted the widespread use of that title earlier, some radical mob would have proclaimed him “King” and thus have provided sufficient grounds for a charge of sedition.

That Jesus did positively intend that “Son of man” should be understood in a unique and supernatural sense is proved by his own use of the title, as follows:

He used the title: (1) in connection with his power to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6); (2) of his lordship over the sabbath (Matt. 12:8); (3) of his second advent in glory (Matt. 19:28); (4) of his resurrection (Matt. 17:23); (5) of his seeking and saving that which is lost (Luke 19:10); (6) and of his coming in the final judgment (Matt. 26:64).

The frustrated hatred and enmity of the Pharisees at his trial before Caiaphas reached a point of frenzy over this very title. The Pharisees knew perfectly that “Son of man” was fully as adequate a title of the Messiah as was “Son of God”; but they were trying to trick Jesus into using the latter title, because of its popular but mistaken identification with an earthly kingship of Israel. At the climax of the trial, Caiaphas placed Jesus under oath, saying, “Tell us, art thou the Christ, the Son of God?” (Matt. 26:63). In his reply, Jesus used the other terms: “Thou shalt see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). The Sanhedrin accepted Son of man as equivalent to Son of God on that occasion and certified to Pilate that he had “made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). From these and many other considerations, therefore, it must be concluded that the answer to the second question raised at the first of this analysis is that Jesus preferred “Son of man” because of that title’s being free of any possible misrepresentation. The very learned, such as the Pharisees, well knew it as a valid and proper designation of the divine Messiah; but it is clear that the multitudes did not so recognize it (John 12:34).

Emil Von Ludwig’s blasphemous biography, “The Son of Man,” made this title the ground of his thesis that Jesus never claimed to be anything but a man; but his thesis is contradicted and disproved by the best of all judges of such a question, the Sanhedrin itself, which accepted the title, and so certified it to the governor, as equivalent in every way to “the Son of God.” Besides that, Jesus’ own use of it leaves no shadow of doubt that it carried the utmost implications of deity and Godhead, as well as connotations of his perfect and unique humanity.^[1]

Jesus now speaks to all the disciples there present. He tells that they would hereafter see the angels ascending and descending upon him, the Son of Man (a messianic title, see Daniel 7:13).

As students of the Old Testament, his disciples would have realized that Jesus was alluding to Jacob’s vision of the ladder connecting heaven to earth (see Genesis 28:12ff.). Jacob had left home, having lied to his father and cheated his brother of the birthright.

Yet in his dream Jacob saw a vision of angels ministering to him. If God could reveal himself to a sinner like Jacob, surely he could reveal himself in an even greater way to Nathanael.

To Nathanael and the others, the heavens would be opened—i.e., they would be given insight into the things of heaven (Acts 10:11; Rev. 4:1; 19:11).

Furthermore, they would realize that Jesus, as the Son of Man, was the vehicle of communication between heaven and earth. Just as God had appointed Jacob to be the father of the twelve tribes (under the new name Israel), God had appointed Jesus to be the founder of the new spiritual kingdom.^[2]

“Son of man” was one of our Lord’s favorite titles for Himself; it is used eighty-three times in the Gospels and at least thirteen times in John. The title speaks of both the deity and humanity of Jesus.

The vision in Daniel 7:13 presents the “Son of man” in a definite messianic setting; and Jesus used the title in the same way (Matt. 26:64).

As Son of man, Jesus is the “living link” between heaven and earth. This explains His reference to “Jacob’s ladder” in Genesis 28. Jacob the fugitive thought he was alone, but God had sent the angels to guard and guide him.

Christ is God’s “ladder” between heaven and earth. “No man cometh to the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6). Often in this Gospel, you will find Jesus reminding people that He came down from heaven. The Jewish people knew that “Son of man” was a name for their Messiah (John 12:34).

At the close of that fourth day, Jesus had six believing men who were His disciples. They did not immediately “forsake all and follow Him”; that was to come later. But they had trusted Him and experienced His power.

In the three years that lay ahead, they would grow in their faith, learn more about Jesus, and one day take His place on the earth so that the Word might be carried to all mankind.

Jesus of Nazareth is God come in the flesh. When Philip called Him “the son of Joseph,” he was not denying Jesus’ virgin birth or divine nature. That was merely His legal identification, for a Jewish person was identified according to who his father was (John 6:42). The witness of this entire chapter is clear: Jesus of Nazareth is God come in the flesh!

God is here!^[3]

⁵⁸ J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 654.

^[1] James B. Coffman, Commentary on John, The James Burton Coffman Commentaries (A. C. U. Press, 1984), Jn 1:51.

^[2] Bruce B. Barton, John, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 28.

^[3] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 284–289.