Every commentator I've ever read says that "son of man" in Ezekiel has nothing to do with that term as it applies to Jesus. But I must ask, why? We know that Ezekiel is a type of Christ, even as are all the prophets (Acts 10:43 et. al.). So why the man, but not the title? I suspect that, like so many other presuppositions, that this is one more false conclusion that has been stated so many times that it becomes reified. There is an awful lot of that that goes on in Biblical interpretation.

Ezekiel is addressed as "Son of Man" more than 100 times. Jesus is named "Son of Man" about 90 times; and so facile explanations cannot satisfy.

What does "Son of Man" mean? And for that matter what does "Son of God" mean? The common answer is that Son of Man refers to the Lord's humanity, and Son of God to his divinity. It's possible.

William Weinrich, in his commentary on St. John's gospel, shows that the Lord uses this title, "Son of Man" whenever he speaks of his impending death; but if so how does this help us understand these two terms?

But what if we should translate the Greek genitive here as a: genitive of apposition / genitive of description as in John 2:21, "The temple OF his body," or said another way, "the temple which is (or consists of) his body." Then we would have a genitive of apposition / description. But what does this do for us?

It would render this translation, "The Son who is Man" / "The Son who is God." Now we have a powerful Christological appellation, pregnant with meaning. Ezekiel was the "son who is man," but Jesus is both the Son who is God and the Son who is Man.

As God his divine blood spilt is all availing, potent enough to atone for all wickedness of all people of all time. As man he has both taken our place in judgment, and Perfected Manhood. All of this is predicted by the prophets, and most poignantly by this particular prophet, Ezekiel the "son who is man."