Why is Ezekiel called son of man if it is a title for Jesus?

He is addressed at once by the title which we have already seen to be characteristic of his prophecy: "Son of man," says the Voice, "stand upon thy feet, and I will speak with thee." The title given him is itself a proof that the people to whom he goes have lost their special distinctive place with God, but at the same time that if Israel will not hear, grace will not be thwarted in its object. The message will only go out the more widely, and indeed, with a deeper, sweeter, fuller message, as we abundantly prove today. This title is in itself the foreshadow of One who when standing in the midst of Israel in a day which was then future, would adopt it for His own. The Son of Man would be the Seeker of men, and Himself a man in all the conditions of humanity — Himself the perfect, because unfallen, Man. The Lord's adoption of this title is, however, distinct in its significance from the use of it by God in His address to the prophet. God never addresses Christ as the Son of Man, but as His own Son; man indeed, but as it is said in Zechariah: "The Man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts" (Zech. 13:7). But the Lord's adoption of it for Himself is peculiar, and characteristic of the uniqueness of His personality. Who but Himself could say, "I the Son of man?" No mere man could claim distinctively to be what all men are. Man indeed He is thoroughly, nor only man, but Son of man, entering into manhood by the door ordained, by its lowliness, to hide pride from man. To the weakness of infancy He is no stranger. He grows and learns as other men, His kinship with whom this name discloses; yet while it discloses this, it distinguishes Him none the less from all else among men — distinctive even because of its universality; for who could distinguish himself by a title that was not distinctive? He was thus Son of man in some sense peculiar to Himself — Son of man, while much more than this. With Ezekiel the term speaks, on the other hand, simply of his identification with men. He is not the son of man, but reminded of the lowliness of his condition, while at the same time this only magnifies the grace which has taken him up; and thus also there is in him a peculiar suitability to convey the message with which he is charged — not an angel, but with human sympathies, and a human intelligence acquired and exercised amid human conditions; himself thus the proof of the heart of God behind the hand of Him who is love and cannot change His nature, even when He is executing judgment.

The feebleness of the instrument is recognized, and thus calls forth Jehovah's might to sustain it. We see this at the outset here: "Son of man, stand upon thy feet and I will speak with thee." And not only so, but the Spirit enters into him to make him stand. He cannot even listen to the message in that prostrate condition which, while it may rightly express the nothingness of the creature in the presence of God, at the same time cannot suitably express the divine grace towards him. We see this everywhere in the history of the prophets, as notably in the prophet Daniel, and as again also in the case of John the beloved. God cannot utter His thoughts to one prostrate in the dust before Him. This does not suit the blessed Speaker; and this is already the foretaste of that which enables us to say we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, "Abba, Father." That cry is not yet come in Ezekiel's case, belonging as he does to a previous dispensation, but none the less the spirit of fear is bidden to depart, in order that the divine communications may have their suited character; for if God is enwrapping Himself in the cloud of judgment, nevertheless there is, as we have seen, the manifestation of One to whom judgment is a strange work, and those iris hues of promise are about the cloud. The messenger must in his spirit reflect this, that he may be fit as a messenger; and whether they hear or whether they forbear, the prophet must be witness in his own person that if "justice and judgment are the habitation of His throne," "mercy and truth" yet "go before His face."

From these passages it is abundantly clear that the Lord adopted the title of Son of Man in view of His rejection, suffering and death; and secondly, it is as manifestly taught that it is in this character as the Son of Man that He will have universal rule throughout the world. Daniel thus says, "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him" (Dan. 7:13-14).

Allusion has been made to the fact that the prophet Ezekiel is addressed by the same title, and the remarks of another upon this may aid the reader in understanding its general purport. He says, "The throne of the supreme and sovereign Lord God is seen in Chaldea — in the place where the prophet then was — among the Gentiles. It is no longer seen at Jerusalem in connection with the land; nor have we any law embodied, so to speak, in the throne, according to which an immediate government was exercised. Consequently the voice of God speaks to Ezekiel as to a 'son of man' — a title that suited the testimony of a God who spoke outside of His people, as being no longer in their midst, but on the contrary as judging them from the throne of His sovereignty. It is Christ's own title, looked at as rejected and outside of Israel, although He never ceases to think of the blessing of the people in grace. This puts the prophet in connection with the position of Christ Himself. He would not, thus rejected, allow His disciples to announce Him as the Christ (Luke 9), for the Son of Man was to suffer."*

This throne of the supreme and sovereign Lord God is seen in Chaldea* — in the place where the prophet then was — among the Gentiles. It is no longer seen at Jerusalem in connection with the land; nor have we any law embodied, so to speak, in the throne, according to which an immediate government was exercised. Consequently the voice of God speaks to Ezekiel as to a "son of man" — a title that suited the testimony of a God who spoke outside of His people, as being no longer in their midst, but on the contrary was judging them from the throne of His sovereignty. It is Christ's own title, looked at as rejected and outside of Israel, although He never ceases to think of the blessing of the people in grace. This puts the prophet in connection with the position of Christ Himself. He would not, thus rejected, allow His disciples to announce Him as the Christ (Luke 9), for the Son of man was to suffer.

The new attitude is remarkably exemplified in another way by the title God gives to the prophet fallen on his face, in chapter 2, and thenceforward. For when the voice spoke from the likeness of the glory of Jehovah, the words were, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee. So was Daniel styled once (Dan. 8:17), and Ezekiel more than a hundred times. It is the title Jesus appropriated as the rejected Messiah who should suffer, be exalted, and return in glory as the Son of man. His servants have the same title, as identified with the glory of God, who now declares Himself outside Israel and even judging them by the Gentiles.

The use of this phrase in the Old Testament corroborates this interpretation of its significance. Passing over the general prophetic sense of the term in Job 25:6; Ps. 8:4; Ps. 80:17; Dan. 7:13; it is applied by Jehovah to two of His prophets, viz., Daniel and Ezekiel (Dan. 8:17; Ezek. 2:1, etc.). Now both of these men were raised up as witnesses during the period when the nation, on account of its apostasy from the worship of Jehovah, was under a foreign yoke. Sovereignty was transferred from Israel to the Gentiles, and it is remarkable that these two contemporary servants of God who prophesied outside the land of Israel during the captivity are the only ones who are so designated. So that the Lord, in describing Himself as the Son of man, adopted a title hitherto borne only by prophets in exile. It was even then a title of reproach, inasmuch as it indicated that the nation of Israel, like Esau, renounced the privileges of its birthright. But what was the departure in the day of Daniel and Ezekiel to the departure in the day of the Gospel? Was it not an incomparable privilege that the Messiah should offer Himself to the Jews, insignificant as they were nationally at that period, and enslaved moreover to the Romans? But the people deliberately refused Him, whereupon the Lord instructed His followers to proclaim Him no longer in that character (Matt. 16:13-28; Mark 8:30; Luke 9:21), but to know Him as the Son of man who was to pass through the depths of suffering to the heights of glory in the kingdom beyond. This was a difficulty to His disciples then even as it is still; only faith can adequately sustain him who seeks to walk in the pathway of the despised and suffering Son of man.

Thus if there is judgment, it is the judgment of the priest: not only in necessary holiness, but the judgment of one who desires to justify, and not to judge. Ezekiel is thus all through the book the "son of man," a term by which only once elsewhere another prophet — Daniel — is addressed (Dan. 8:17). Daniel is also the one who sees upon the throne of final empire, "One like unto a Son of man" (Dan. 7:13). Here also, how beautiful it is to see that on the heavenly throne is the "appearance of a man" (Ezek. 1:26). It is the Lord Himself who declares to us that the Father "hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man" (John 5:27). It is by a Man that man is to be judged. It is by One who knows thoroughly all that pertains to man, who has been no stranger to a path of obedience amid all the conditions that have been brought in by the fall, in human weakness facing the full power of the enemy, bearing too the burden of sin, felt as none else could feel it, and drained the cup of wrath to its very dregs. Ezekiel is but the mere shadow of such an One in whose hands judgment is safe, and the divine pity shines all through it. Yet is the title divinely given to him, the assurance of a Heart that thus appeals to man's heart all the way through the long detail of that which has provoked a judgment inflicted only when even divine patience has reached its limit, and further delay could only be dishonor. These details are but the necessary vindication, before the eyes of His creatures, of Him who judges. Thus Ezekiel is the book of manifestation; but in which not man alone, but God also is manifested, and in the love at last to which He is then able to give way.

SON OF MAN

This title was often on the lips of the Lord Jesus when here on earth. It occurs about 80 times, mostly in the Gospels, once in the Hebrews, and three times in the Book of the Revelation. The only other person described as the son of man is the prophet, Ezekiel, which occurs over 80 times, and designates his earthly origin, and is marked by the absence in the original of the definite article. In the case of our Lord it is definitely a title, speaking of Him as Man being the Head of the creation of God, and always carries with it in the original the definite article.

The integrity of our Saviour’s manhood is marked by one title which the Lord claimed for Himself with special emphasis, and which prophecy also had in a most distinct way applied to Him,—“the Son of man.” Here “man,” in the Hebrew texts, is “Adam,” man generically; and it really settles conclusively the question (if any entertain it) as to His being personally Man. A son of man is just a man in the broadest sense, one by descent and inheritance a man. In Ps. 49 a “the low” in our version are just literally “the sons of Adam”—the commonalty, having nothing to distinguish them from others,—and are so contrasted with the “sons of ish,” (“the high”) the men of mark in any way whatever. By the use of this term the Lord comes down, therefore, in the simplest manner, as far as the truth of His humanity is concerned, to the common level. He is not simply “man,” One whom you could call that, though differing far from the race of Adam: He is “Son of man;” deriving His humanity from humanity, with nothing to separate it in kind from humanity in general,—“made in all things like unto His brethren,” as the apostle declares. The Christ of Apollinaris, or of some of the modern Kenotics, would not be a “Son of man.” He would be a divine man, perhaps; but absolutely separated from humanity in the sons of men: “brethren” among these He could not have. The force of the term is seen in the use of it as applied to the prophet Ezekiel, and once in Daniel. Both lived when things were broken up in Israel; and Ezekiel as the priest is chosen of God to be the judge, according to the law of Leviticus in its spiritual application, of the leprous condition of the people. He is taken to witness their wilful and inveterate apostasy from Jehovah. After which, as commanded in Leviticus, the demonstration being complete, the leper is put outside the camp. The glory of the Lord is seen, though lingeringly, as all unwilling, to depart from the city (chap. 11:22, 23.)

Now the priest is one “taken from among men,” and thus qualified to be “ordained for men in things pertaining to God.” (Heb. 5:1.) His humanity makes him to know men, and to have heart interest in them. And thus we see the meaning of the priest prophet being addressed, as he is so constantly, as “son of man.” As we try men before juries of their peers, so man, as such, is here called to pronounce on men. As man and as a priest for men, he is one who will use compassion, and therefore his judgment will be more complete and final, impossible to be objected against. His judgment is appealed to here, therefore, as “son of man.” (chapter 20:4; 22:2.)

Now the priest is one "taken from among men," and thus qualified to be "ordained for men in things pertaining to God." (Heb. 5:1.) His humanity makes him to know men, and to have heart-interest in them. And thus we see the meaning of the priest-prophet being addressed, as he is so constantly, as "son of man." As we try men before juries of their peers, so man, as such, is here called to pronounce on men. As man and as a priest for men, he is one who will use compassion, and therefore his judgment will be more complete and final, impossible to be objected against. His judgment is appealed to here, therefore, as "son of man." (Ezek. 20:4; Ezek. 22:2.)

The first point here is in the apprehension of Himself; and so He asks His disciples now. "Who do men say that I, the Son of man; am?" He uses the term by which we find Him, in the synoptic Gospels, most commonly speaking of Himself, the term so perfect in its lowliness, so tender in its intimacy, so unique in its very generality: for, just because all were "sons of men," the claim to be the Son of man would by itself be suited to awaken attention. If Daniel, and, still more, Ezekiel were addressed by the Lord as "son of man," this of course was a thing quite different. Whatever else it signified, the reminder of essential difference between the glorious Speaker and the frail instrument by whom He pleased to speak to men; was obviously in place. But, just on that very account, no prophet of them all, in speaking to other men, could have called himself the "Son of man." On the other hand, Daniel had spoken of "One like unto a son of man" coming in the clouds of heaven to receive universal dominion (Dan. 7:13-14), a passage to us abundantly clear, but which does not in fact give Messiah this title, as is plain, and by the Jews in general it does not seem to have been even applied to him. The question put by them afterwards would apparently indicate this: "We have heard out of the Law, that Christ abideth for ever; and Thou sayest, the Son of man shall be lifted up: who is this Son of man? (John 12:34). As a title indeed, to those whose expectations of the Messiah were so different, its lowliness would not commend it to such use as the Lord constantly made of it. The form of it in Daniel (Bar Enahsh) is the very lowliest, "a son of frail, or mortal, man," so that we are naturally reminded of the "likeness of sinful flesh" (it could only be "likeness" here of which the apostle speaks, Rom. 8:3). Little fit would they be to understand the tenderness of the adoption of such an epithet as "Son of man."