JESUS IS GOD, JESUS IS SON OF GOD, JESUS IS SON OF MAN

 *HOW CAN JESUS BE GOD, THE SON OF GOD, LORD, AND SON OF MAN AT THE SAME TIME?*

*JESUS IS BOTH GOD AND SON OF GOD AT THE SAME TIME*

Jesus can be both God and the Son of God because the terms do not mean the same thing. When we say that Jesus is God (John 1:1 [The WORD is God and was present during creation, and the WORD is Jesus Christ]; Colossians 2:9 [Jesus was fully God and fully man while on earth]; Hebrews 1:8 [God the Father called God the Son, God]), we are saying that Jesus possesses the divine nature (as well as a human nature [this is theologically called *hypostatic union*]). So the term "Son of God" does not mean that Jesus is not God. Think about it. If the term "Son of God" meant that Jesus is not God, then does the term "Son of Man" mean that Jesus is not a man? *NO*. Likewise, if the term "Son of Man" means that Jesus is a man, then it implies that the "Son of God" means that Jesus is God. *We ought not look at the ancient words found in Scripture and judge them by modern thinking*. The Gospel according to John recorded thus: "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18). As you can see in this verse, Jesus was calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. *Therefore, the term Son of God is a designation of the equality with God when it is a reference to Christ*. In the *credo*, we use the phrase *Consubstantial with the Father*. Remember that the Latin word *consubstantial* was not translated into English because there is no English word that will perfectly bring out the original meaning without falling into heresy or giving room for adulteration.

Too, the phrase "Son of God" occurs 44 times in the New American Standard Bible. Each time, it is used of Christ. *It is a title of his pre-eminence, holiness, and relationship to God the Father*. In fact, we see that the Pharisees wanted to kill him for proclaiming he was the son of God (cf. John 10:30-36). In this account we see the second instance of Jesus being threatened with stoning. The first one is a little earlier.

More so, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple," (John 8:58-59). Jesus' words here are significant because he says he is the "I am." This is similar to what is found in Exodus (Exodus 3:14-15): God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations". 

However, we can also say that “Son of God” does not necessarily imply a divine nature. This is because many of the Old Testament people, not to mention angels, are called “sons of God”: Adam, kings of Judah, Christians, the Sethites or fallen angels of Genesis 6, etc. *Thus, when it is used in reference to Christ, it implies divine nature; when used for human being, it does not implies divine nature.* 

*JESUS IS GOD, SON OF GOD AND SON OF MAN AT THE SAME TIME*

Jesus often calls himself “the son of man.” So far, the term “son of man” is a way of emphasizing Jesus’ humanity, highlighting the fact that Jesus is a real human being, having both flesh and blood. *In the same way, we should not think that “son of man” is simply or primarily a way of speaking about Jesus’ humanity*. So, to understand what Jesus really meant by that, let us look at how the title “son of man” was used in the Old Testament. So here are some basic observations about how the title is used:

(1) The title “son of man” appears several times in the Old Testament as a way of highlighting weakness. In Job 16:21; 25:6; and 35:8 it appears to have that connotation, and also in Isaiah 51:12. Similarly, in Numbers 23:19, the God who does not lie or repent is contrasted with the “son of man” who does both.

(2) There is one occasion in Isaiah (56:2) and two in Jeremiah (50:40; 51:43) where the term doesn’t really appear to imply weakness particularly, but to simply be a euphemism for human. A handful of uses in the Psalms fall into these two categories.

Now, if these passages are the background for Jesus’ use of “son of man” for himself, perhaps a case could be made that he means it as a title of humility for Jesus Christ.

(3) Moving on then, thirdly, there is one occasion in the Psalms where the title is used in a context that implies not weakness but strength: Psalm 80:16-18 says this:…*son of man* whom you have made strong for yourself. The reference here is most likely to the king of Judah. He is the man at God’s right hand. 

In Psalm 8:4-8 as well, even though the psalmist marvels that the God who made the heavens has regard for the “son of man,” he recognizes that God has crowned the son of man with glory and honor, and set him over all God’s works. So “son of man” can refer to a powerful or at least an honored person. It’s worth noting as well, with Psalm 8 brought into the picture, that the Hebrew term is *ben-adam,* son of “Adam”, which is the generic word for “humamankind”, but points to the original man Adam of whom every human is a son or daughter. Of course, Psalm 8 itself clearly alludes to the original Adam when it sings of how the “son of man” is entrusted with dominion over creation.

These three categories of use leave us with the understanding that *“son of man” as a generic title can highlight the frailty of mankind in contrast with God, but it can also be used to summon the recollection of humanity’s high status as the image of God and ruler of creation*. 

There are two other more specific uses of “son of man” in the Old Testament. First, in Ezekiel it is used a lot. In fact, Ezekiel is called “son of man” more frequently than Jesus is in all four gospels combined (93 times for Ezekiel and 82 times for Jesus). Second, Daniel has an apocalyptic vision in which he sees “one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven” and receiving a kingdom which will never pass away. Daniel is then himself called “son of man”/ “mortal man” soon after (8:17). Jesus’ own use of the term is often connected with statements about his “coming with the clouds of heaven,” so Daniel serves as the most promising immediate background. 

One other point before looking at the gospels. “Son of Man” is a title used almost entirely by Jesus himself to refer to himself. After the gospels, it disappears completely. It did not pass into normal Christian usage or worship. Stephen did see “the son of man” standing at the right hand of God. In the Revelation also it appears twice: the son of man is standing in the midst of the lampstands, and is seated on a cloud with a sickle in his hand. 

*Son of Man in the Gospels*

There is no particular gospel in which the title dominates. It appears 29 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, 26 times in Luke, and 13 times in John. This is important evidence that the Gospels record Jesus as he actually spoke. Jesus’ self-reference as “son of man”, “probably”, owes primarily to three considerations:

The similarity of his ministry to Ezekiel’s.

Jesus as the fulfillment of Daniel’s vision, as the one who receives and rules over the kingdom of God.

The term Son of God as applied to Jesus is unique. It does not mean he was a child of God, as Christians are when they are adopted into God's family. Rather, it points out his divinity, meaning he is God.

The title “Son of Man” goes much deeper, though. Jesus was speaking of the prophecy in Daniel 7:13-14. Jews of his day, and especially the religious leaders, would have been familiar with that reference.

In addition, Son of Man was a title of the Messiah, the anointed one of God who would free the Jewish people from bondage. The Messiah had long been expected, but the high priest and others refused to believe Jesus was that person.  As Jesus preached throughout Israel, he knew it would have been considered blasphemous to call himself the Son of God. Using that title about himself would have ended his ministry prematurely. Thus, he preferred to use “Son of Man”. During his trial by the religious leaders, Jesus answered their question that he was the Son of God, and the high priest tore his own robe in horror, accusing Jesus of blasphemy.

*Summarily* There are hints, however, that as the “Son of God,” Jesus was more than a mere man, a mere “son of David,” who would sit on the throne of His father, David. This is especially clear in the Gospel of John, beginning in chapter 5. It also seems to be clear at the trial of our Lord. When Jesus was asked by the priest if He was the “Son of God,” He admitted that He was, and was charged with blasphemy – claiming to be God (cf. Matthew 16:63, 65, 68). 

In the Old Testament, the coming Messiah, the descendant of David, was to become God’s “son” (2 Samuel 7:12-14a; Psalm 2:7). To be God’s “son” was to be the ruler God had appointed, of the line of David. As Israel’s Messiah, Jesus was the “Son of God.” But Jesus further clarified the matter, demonstrating that He was indeed, God manifested in the flesh, something John is eager for His readers to grasp at the beginning of his Gospel (John 1:1-5, 9-14). *Thus, the first century Jew understood the term “the Son of God” to mean “the Messiah.” And with our Lord’s further claims (John 5:8-23), they understood this term to mean that Jesus, as the “Son of God” was not only the Messiah but God incarnate.* *By Incarnation, he is also the Son of Man which He call Himself*

© Rev Fr Utazi Prince Marie Benignus Zereuwa  

December 15 2020