Two titles for Jesus in the New Testament, both built on the Greek word for son: huios theou — “Son of God” — and ho huios tou anthrōpou — “the Son of Man.”
The first sounds divine. The second sounds human. The natural assumption, taught in many Sunday school classes, is that the New Testament balances these two titles to confess Christ’s two natures — fully God, fully man. The Son of God title teaches His divinity; the Son of Man title teaches His humanity.
The assumption is half right.
The Son of God title does teach Christ’s divinity. But the Son of Man title is not the human counterpart to the divine title. It is, if anything, an even more exalted title than Son of God. The phrase comes from Daniel 7:13, where the prophet sees “with the clouds of the sky, one like a son of man was approaching” given dominion and glory and an everlasting kingdom by the Ancient of Days. The “son of man” of Daniel 7 is not merely human; he is the heavenly figure who receives universal sovereignty from God Himself.
When Jesus calls Himself “the Son of Man” — His most frequent self-designation, used about eighty times in the gospels and almost exclusively on His own lips — He is not stooping to confess His humanity. He is laying claim to the Daniel 7 prophecy. He is identifying Himself as the figure who comes with the clouds and receives the kingdom from the Father.
Both titles, properly understood, are claims to exalted identity. One names His eternal relation to the Father within the Trinity. The other names His eschatological role as the Son of Man who will return in glory. Christ’s two natures (divine and human) are confessed in the New Testament — but they are not what these two titles primarily teach.
This entry is about the word that both titles share.
The Word
The Greek word is υἱός (huios), pronounced in the Erasmian convention used here as hwee-OSS, with the accent on the second syllable. The initial rough breathing produces the h- sound; the upsilon-iota combination yields the -wee- glide.
The word family is relatively compact:
Huiothesia (υἱοθεσία) — adoption as a son. The Pauline doctrine, treated in Huiothesia. The word is compound of huios + thesis (a placing) — literally “the placing as son.”
Huiopoieō (υἱοποιέω) — rare, to make a son of, to adopt. The verb that huiothesia implies.
Bar — not Greek, but worth mentioning. The Aramaic word for son, used in compound names: Bar-nabas (son of consolation), Bar-jonah (son of Jonah), Bar-Abbas (son of the father, ironically). The New Testament occasionally preserves Aramaic forms for atmospheric purposes.
The etymology of huios is uncertain. Greek lexicographers debate whether it relates to an Indo-European root meaning “to give birth” or “to nurture.” Whatever the deep etymology, by the New Testament period huios was simply the ordinary Greek word for “son” in all senses — biological, social, religious, and theological.
The Septuagint background is essential. The LXX uses huios to render Hebrew ben, the ordinary Hebrew word for son. Both Hebrew ben and Greek huios are used in a wide range of senses — biological son, descendant, member of a group, possessor of a quality. This semantic breadth carries directly into the New Testament.
The phrase “son of God” in its various forms appears at several critical points in the Old Testament:
Genesis 6:2, 4 — “the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose. … The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God would sleep with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men.” The notorious passage that has produced centuries of debate: are these sons of God angels (the older Jewish reading), the godly line of Seth (Augustine), or royal/divine kings? The passage is real but its exegetical resolution is contested.
Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 — the sons of God in the divine council. Heavenly beings (likely angels) who present themselves before the LORD.
Psalm 2:7 — “You are my son. This very day I have become your father.” Spoken by God to the Davidic king. Quoted in the New Testament at Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, and Hebrews 5:5 — each time applied to Christ.
Psalm 89:26-27 — the Davidic king as God’s firstborn son. The royal-messianic background.
2 Samuel 7:14 — the dynastic promise to David: “I will become his father and he will become my son.” Quoted in Hebrews 1:5 alongside Psalm 2:7.
Hosea 11:1 — “I called my Son out of Egypt.” Israel as God’s corporate son, quoted in Matthew 2:15 as fulfilled in Jesus.
Exodus 4:22-23 — “You must say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord has said, ‘Israel is my son, my firstborn, and I said to you, ‘Let my son go that he may serve me,’ but since you have refused to let him go, I will surely kill your son, your firstborn!’’” Corporate sonship of the covenant people.
Psalm 82:6 — “I thought, ‘You are gods; all of you are sons of the Most High.’” A difficult passage, cited by Jesus in John 10:34 in the controversy over His own divine claims.
The phrase “son of man” in its various forms also has critical Old Testament background:
Psalm 8:4 — “Of what importance is the human race, that you should notice them? Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them?” Synonymous parallelism: “son of man” simply means “human being.” This is the ordinary OT usage.
Ezekiel — God repeatedly addresses the prophet as “son of man” — about ninety times. Here too the meaning is “human being,” in this case used to address the prophet in his creaturely status before God.
Daniel 7:13–14 — “I was watching in the night visions, and with the clouds of the sky, one like a son of man was approaching. He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him. To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty. All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. His authority is eternal and will not pass away. His kingdom will not be destroyed.” Aramaic bar enash (rendered huios anthrōpou in the LXX). This is the foundational text for Jesus’s self-designation. Not the human-creature usage of Ezekiel, but the eschatological-heavenly figure of Daniel.
The double background is critical. “Son of God” carries forward the OT royal-messianic theology (Psalm 2, 2 Samuel 7) into Christological confession. “Son of Man” carries forward the Daniel 7 vision of the eschatological heavenly figure. Both phrases name Christ’s exalted identity — though from different angles.
Range of Meaning
Huios in the New Testament covers a meaningful range:
Biological son. The ordinary use. The sons in the parables, the sons in the genealogies, the son who returns from the far country.
Descendant. “Sons of Israel” (the Israelites). “Son of Abraham” (a descendant of Abraham, or, by Pauline reading, a person of Abraham’s faith).
Member of a group. “Sons of the prophets” (disciples of the prophetic schools). “Sons of the bridechamber” (wedding guests, Mark 2:19). “Sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2 — those who belong to the company of the disobedient).
Possessor of a characteristic. “Sons of light” / “sons of the day” (1 Thessalonians 5:5 — believers, who belong to the light). “Sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17 — the nickname Jesus gives James and John). “Son of consolation” (Acts 4:36 — Barnabas).
Heir. “Sons of the kingdom” (Matthew 8:12, 13:38). The one who is to inherit.
Christ as Son of God by eternal generation. The unique and irreducible NT usage. Christ is not “a son of God” in the sense the angels or Israel or the Davidic king are sons of God; He is THE Son, eternally generated from the Father.
Christ as the Son of Man. His distinctive self-designation, drawing on Daniel 7. Used about eighty times in the gospels.
Believers as sons of God through adoption. Romans 8, Galatians 4, Ephesians 1. Real sonship, derived from and dependent on Christ’s sonship.
Israel as God’s son corporately. Matthew 2:15 (citing Hosea 11:1) applies the title to Christ as the true Israel; the NT pattern of Christ recapitulating Israel’s history.
Negative spiritual sonship. “the people of the evil one” (Matthew 13:38, NET). “you son of the devil” (Acts 13:10 — Paul’s rebuke of Elymas). The same lexical structure used to name the spiritual paternity of those opposed to God.
The theologically loaded uses are the sixth, seventh, and eighth — Christ as Son of God, Christ as Son of Man, and believers as sons through adoption. The entry focuses on these.
Where You’ll Meet It
Matthew 3:17. “And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight.’” The voice at Jesus’s baptism. The Greek: Houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapētos, en hō eudokēsa. Three phrases echo the Old Testament: “my Son” (Psalm 2:7), “the beloved” (the Aqedah of Genesis 22, the only-beloved Isaac), and “in him I take great delight” (Isaiah 42:1, the chosen servant). Three OT streams converge on the baptismal voice. The Father is identifying the Son at the inauguration of His public ministry, drawing on the royal-messianic Psalm 2, the patriarchal sacrifice typology of Genesis 22, and the servant-songs of Isaiah. The Sonship of Christ is at the center of His ministry from the beginning.
Matthew 16:16. “Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’” The first apostolic confession. Jesus’s response (Matthew 16:17): “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!” The Sonship of Christ is recognized only by divine revelation, not by human inference. Peter does not figure it out; the Father reveals it. This text is the foundation of the church’s confession of Christ as Son.
Mark 14:61-62. “But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest questioned him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ ‘I am,’ said Jesus, ‘and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’” The most concentrated combination of the two titles in the gospels. The high priest asks about “Son of the Blessed” (= Son of God). Jesus answers affirmatively and immediately escalates by adding the Son of Man title from Daniel 7 — the heavenly figure coming with the clouds, the one to whom dominion is given. This is what the high priest condemns as blasphemy. Jesus is not merely claiming the messianic Son of God title; He is claiming the Daniel 7 heavenly figure for Himself. Both titles together, in one exchange, lead to His condemnation.
John 3:16. “For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” The most famous use of huios in the New Testament. The Greek phrase is ton huion ton monogenē, “only Son.” The monogenēs term is treated at length in Monogenēs; this entry notes that the huios of John 3:16 is the unique Son, the one Son in the eminent sense, distinct from the many sons by adoption.
Romans 1:3-4. “concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with reference to the flesh, who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.” An early Christian confessional formula about Christ. Critical to note: “declared” (horisthentos) does not mean “made.” The Greek verb means designated, appointed, demonstrated. The resurrection did not create Christ’s Sonship; it vindicated and demonstrated it. The Christ who rose from the dead is the same Son who was descended from David in His incarnation — and the same eternal Son who was eternally begotten of the Father before the foundation of the world.
What Confessional Lutherans Hear
The confessional ear catches three things here.
The eternal generation of the Son from the Father. Christ is the Son by eternal generation, not by adoption, not by creation, not by promotion. The Nicene Creed states the doctrine in its sharpest form: “begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.” This is not a later philosophical accretion to the biblical text; it is the necessary reading of the Father-Son language in the New Testament. The Father is eternally Father; the Son is eternally Son; there has never been a time when the Father was not Father or the Son was not Son. The Augsburg Confession Article III opens with this confession: “the Son of God became man, born of the Virgin Mary” — the Son, eternally Son, who in time took on flesh.
The dual Christological title structure. “Son of God” and “Son of Man” are two angles on Christ’s exalted identity. The first names His eternal relation to the Father in the Trinity. The second names His eschatological identity as the Daniel 7 figure who comes with the clouds and receives the kingdom. Both titles are exalted; neither is the New Testament’s primary way of teaching Christ’s two natures. The two natures (fully God, fully man) are confessed in Scripture and the Confessions, but they are not the dichotomy between these two titles. The dichotomy these titles name is the dichotomy between the eternal Trinitarian Son and the eschatological enthroned Son.
The believer’s adoption as son in Christ. The believer is a son of God, but not in the same way Christ is. Christ is Son by nature — eternally generated, of one substance with the Father. The believer is son by adoption — placed in the family of God by the Spirit’s work, on the basis of Christ’s mediation. The two sonships are not equal; they are not parallel; they are not interchangeable. Christ alone is the unique Son. The believer is a son because Christ is the Son, and the believer is adopted into the family that Christ already constitutes.
The pastoral payoff is substantial. The believer is a real son of God. Not in the sense that the believer becomes divine (the eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis often pushes here in ways confessional Lutherans do not follow). The believer is a real son in the sense that the believer has the real relation to the Father that adopted sons have — full standing, full inheritance, full access. The Spirit of the Son bears witness in the believer’s heart, crying “Abba, Father.” This is not less than full sonship; it is full sonship, but always derivative of and dependent on the unique Sonship of Christ.
Where People Get It Wrong
The misreadings of huios are some of the most consequential in Christological theology.
Arianism. The ancient heresy that taught Christ was a created Son — the first and highest of God’s creatures, but a creature nonetheless. The Council of Nicaea (AD 325) condemned this view, asserting that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) with the Father. Modern forms of Arianism survive in Jehovah’s Witness theology (which identifies the Son with the archangel Michael, the first creation) and in various academic theologians who deny eternal generation. The New Testament’s huios will not bear this reading: Christ is not made or created, but eternally begotten — a distinction the Nicene Creed makes explicit and the New Testament’s grammar requires.
Adoptionism. The opposite error from Arianism. Adoptionism teaches that Christ was a man who became Son at some specific point — baptism, resurrection, or ascension — by divine adoption. The view appeals to texts like Romans 1:4 (“who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.”) as evidence that Christ became Son through the resurrection. But the Greek verb horizō (declared) does not mean “made”; it means “designated” or “demonstrated.” The resurrection vindicated a Sonship that already existed eternally; it did not create one. Christ is eternally Son, then incarnate, then crucified, then risen, then ascended, then enthroned. The Sonship is the constant; the historical events display it.
The “two natures equals two titles” misreading. The popular Sunday school teaching that “Son of God” names Christ’s divinity and “Son of Man” names His humanity. As the entry has argued at length, this is wrong on the second half. “Son of Man” in Jesus’s usage is primarily a Daniel 7 reference — an exalted, heavenly, eschatological figure, not a confession of mere humanity. Christ’s humanity is real and is taught in the New Testament (John 1:14 — “the Word became flesh”; Philippians 2:7 — “taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men”; Hebrews 2:14-17), but it is not taught primarily through the “Son of Man” title. The misreading flattens what the New Testament keeps in tension.
The Mormon doctrine of Christ as separate divine being. The Latter-Day Saints teach that Christ is the first spirit-child of the Father (and of a “Heavenly Mother”), born in a pre-mortal existence, and therefore a separate divine being from the Father. This denies the unity of substance (homoousios) that the New Testament’s Father-Son grammar requires. Christ in the New Testament is not a separate divine being from the Father; He is of one substance with the Father, and the unity of the divine essence is preserved.
Gender objections to Father-Son language. The relational vocabulary of Father and Son is intrinsic to New Testament revelation, not a culturally exchangeable convention. (As argued more fully in Pater.) The eternal generation of the Son from the Father is not a function of biological sex but of the eternal relational structure of the Trinity. Replacing “Son” with “Child” in liturgy or translation may be intended generously, but it loses the specific Father-Son relation the New Testament insists upon.
The “I am, said Jesus, ‘and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘Why do we still need witnesses?’” reduction. Common in popular preaching: “Jesus called Himself Son of Man because He was humble — He didn’t want to claim too much.” The opposite is true. “Son of Man” was Jesus’s most direct way of claiming the Daniel 7 prophecy. Far from humility, the title was His most exalted self-designation. The high priest understood it correctly (Mark 14:62-64); modern preachers sometimes get it backward.
The reduction of “Son of God” to “good man.” Some forms of liberal theology, following Adolf von Harnack, treated “Son of God” as an honorific applied to Jesus because of His exemplary character and consciousness of God — not because of any ontological unity with the Father. On this reading, “Son of God” is the title He earned by His religious genius. The New Testament will not bear this either: the Sonship is grounded in eternal generation, not in moral or religious achievement.
So What
The Sunday school teacher angle is twofold.
First, when you teach the titles of Christ, correct the “Son of God / Son of Man = two natures” misreading. It is widespread, and even competent teachers carry it unawares. The corrective needs a little background: open Daniel 7:13-14, show your class the “one like a son of man” who comes with the clouds and receives the kingdom, then read Mark 14:62 — Jesus’s claim before the Sanhedrin to be that figure. Once students see Daniel 7 behind “Son of Man,” they will not collapse it into a humility-claim again.
Second, teach the eternal generation of the Son. This needs no seminary education; the Nicene Creed states it plainly — eternally begotten of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. The Father is eternally Father, the Son eternally Son; the relation is eternal and constitutive of who God is.
For Bible study leaders, the application extends to the believer’s adoption (treated more fully in Huiothesia). The crucial distinction is between sonship by nature (Christ alone) and sonship by adoption (the believer). Conflating the two produces real errors — the blurring of the Creator-creature distinction, the New Age claim of divinity for the human soul. The believer is fully a son of God by adoption, but the adoption never makes him the eternal Son. There is one such Son.
For pastoral application, the believer’s confidence in addressing God as Father rests on Christ’s Sonship. If Christ is Son by eternal generation, and the believer is adopted in Christ by the Spirit, then the believer’s relation to the Father is real and indissoluble. The Spirit’s cry “Abba, Father” in the believer’s heart is the cry of Christ’s own filial relation, extended through adoption. Christian prayer has this Trinitarian shape because Christian salvation does.
This entry has named the Son — the Son of God in the eternal sense, the Son of Man in the eschatological sense. The related entry on Anthropos explores His humanity. Christ is the eternal Son and also the true human; the Sonship and the humanity together constitute the one Mediator between God and men.