"Son of God", "Son of Man": Opposite or the Same?
C_M_
Posts: 3,230
What is your understanding of these two phrases? To whom do these phases refer? Are these phrases found in the OT and the NT? What do they mean? CM
Tagged:
Comments
Both terms are used in reference to THE MAN Christ Jesus
Isaiah 9:6 prophecy includes a son is born whose name includes "The Mighty God" and "The everlasting Father" so inside the Holy human Jesus Christ was The Word (God) John 1:1 & John 1:14
Keep Smiling
what do you mean with "INSIDE the Holy human Jesus Christ was ""The word (God)** ? How "inside"? and what does your idea about Isa 9:6 have to do with the terms "Son of man" and "Son of God" ?
Jesus knew He was God so used term "Son of God" to describe His Godly being, which is consistent with Godly names in Isaiah 9:6 prophecy (fulfilled by Jesus). Jewish hearers of Jesus also understood Jesus stating He is God (per Jewish scripture) so they wanted to kill Jesus for blasphemy. Those Jews could not believe that God could be in human flesh (they believed all flesh was evil so there was no way for a Good God to be in evil flesh).
Jesus also knew He was a human descendant of Adam (through King David) os so used "Son of Man" to describe His humanity.
Keep Smiling
"His Godly being" -- what are you talking about??
Jewish scripture, that is the OT scripture in the Bible, states NOWHERE that the Messiah was to be God Himself ... rather it makes clear from the very first mention in prophecy in Gen 3:15 that the Messiah was a human being ("seed of the woman"). Thus, the Jews would never consider anyone to be "God in the flesh", since such an idea was "loony tunes fantasy" and not in harmony with Scripture.
The Jews did not accept the man Jesus to be that human being, the Messiah ... and accused him of blasphemy because he claimed to be that Messiah.
The Jews rightfully
Indeed ... Jesus was that promised descendant of Adam, Abraham and king David. But he was not a "God-man" or "man-God", as you suggest he was.
Brethren,
The phrasing "Son of God," to be sure, was not new. It appears in the OT identifying those who bear it with human beings, angels, or Israel in general, as well as its Davidic king in particular (see Gen 6: 1, 2; Job 1: 6; Hos 11: 1; Ps 2: 7).
In either case, it stresses a moral rather than a biological relationship. It explains in a perfectly standard and accepted way the character of the being recognized as very much out of the ordinary. Christ's dignity, however, stands at an infinite distance above that of any created being whatsoever. It is evident that the name is indicative of the deity of Christ.
In wondrous union with the Father, but a different personality from Him, this Son of God, fully God and perfect man, claims and receives without protest, as his just and inalienable right, equal trust, adoration, love and service with him who says, "I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I give to no other" (Is 42: 8).
The personalities of the Father and the Son are distinct. They are not to be identified nor confounded, as is clearly indicated, for instance, at Christ's baptism and transfiguration, when the voice of the Father was heard, saying of Him, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased" (Mt 3: 17; 17: 5). Jesus adds, "I bear witness of me ... , and the Father Himself which hath sent me has borne witness of me" (Jn 5: 36, 37, KJV).
CHALCEDON—INCARNATION AND INVOLVEMENTS.—While the Nicene Creed set forth the eternally pre-existent Godhead of Christ, as opposed to Arianism, the formula of Chalcedon set forth the incarnation of the Second Person of the Godhead as the actual and abiding union of the two natures in one Person, constituting one Being —the divine Logos assuming the human nature common to us all, in inseparable union in one Divine-human Person—a duality of nature, interpenetrating each other, as Son of God and Son of man, the one and only God-man -- Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, pp. 29-34.
Both terms are used in reference to Christ Jesus:
"Son of man" means that at the same time He is human. It was only in the human side of Christ's complex being that there was scope for human limitation or weakness.
On the other, or divine, "Son of God" means that He is divine. This side there was limitless power.
That is the uniqueness of Christ's Sonship. CM
"Again, when Christ identified Himself with the human race, through the incarnation, the Eternal entered into the earthly relationships of time. But from thenceforth, ever since Christ the eternal Son became a man, He has not ceased to be a man. He adopted human nature, and when He returned to His Father.
He not only carried with Him the humanity which He had assumed at the incarnation (Acts 7:55), but retains it, along with the glory which He had from all eternity. It is the Son of man that shares the throne of the universe", so said the then chairman of the Revision Committee of the Scofield Reference Bible.
-- Dr. E. Schuyler English, Our Hope, vol. LXII, no. 8, Feb. 1956, pp. 458, 459.).
Jesus knew He was God (The Holy One) as did His adversaries, especially demons (unclean spirits). For example, in Matthew 4:3 a tempter uses "Son of God" trying to provoke a hungry Jesus to sin. Personally not know any humans who can verbally command stones to become bread.
Jesus used God's name in reference to Himself in John 10:58 (MEV) "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM." Jews responded by picking up stones (to kill Jesus) for blasphemy.
Curious about your interpretation of Genesis 3:15 head and heel in relation to the seed ?
Found a "not uncommon" perspective in a study note about Matthew 1:23
The Tabernacle and the Incarnation: Immanu El, God with Us
Matthew 1:23 In his commentary on Matthew, Rabbi Barney Kasdan writes:
While there is considerable debate in both Jewish and Christian circles about the meaning of this prophecy [Isa. 7:14], Matthew quotes it because it perfectly captures an important truth about the birth of the Messiah. If the Messiah is to have the uniquely divine task of removing the sins of mankind, we should expect him to have a uniquely divine nature. (Matthew Presents Yeshua 16)
Today, in seeking to refute Matthew 1:23, Jewish theologians have sought to discredit the concept of a divine Messiah. However, evidence exists that this was not an uncommon messianic expectation. This is affirmed by modern scholarship, such as Richard Bauckman’s Jesus and the God of Isra’el and among ancient Jewish sources such as Midrashei Geula (Midrashim of Redemption), which states, “In the future, the Holy One, blessed be he, will seat Messiah in the supernal Yeshiva [House of Study], and they will call him ‘Lord,’ just as they call the Creator.”
During his life and ministry, Yeshua never ascribed to himself the title of Immanu El in daily conversation. Instead as the Messiah of Isra’el, Immanu El expressed his divine nature (John 1:1–3). This points to the Tabernacle (Mishkan) in the wilderness where ADONAI commanded the Israelites, “They are to make me a sanctuary, so that I may live among them” (Exod. 25:8). Kasdan further explains that “Yeshua of Nazareth is more than just a good rabbi or an intriguing philosopher. According to the Bible, he is the visible manifestation of the God of creation” (God’s Appointed Times 95). It is for this purpose that John 1:14 says of Yeshua, “The Word became a human being and lived with us.” The word dwelled from the Greek skene derives from the Hebrew Mishkan, showing that in his incarnation Yeshua made his Tabernacle with his people. Thus through Yeshua, God did dwell with his people.
Barry Rubin, ed., The Complete Jewish Study Bible: Notes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Bibles; Messianic Jewish Publishers & Resources, 2016), 1383.
This hermeneutic implies Messiah is divine (since a human only messiah could be ignored, refer to Theudas and Judas the Galilean in Acts 5:33-40)
After much prayer (asking God to open my eyes) and scriptural study, my perspective is Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, including Immanu El (God with us) born from a virgin (plus Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:2). Hence, Jesus was both man and God. Literally, The Word (God) became flesh (man) and dwelled among us, which is documented by many eyewitnesses. Matthew 17:1-11 describes a Godly transformation of Jesus along with appearance of Moses and Elijah.
Keep Smiling
So, you believe Jesus is the Almighty, the Creator, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, the Most High, (Highest), YHWH ??
Is not this what Scripture reveals? CM
No, it is NOT what Scripture reveals.
From what I can read in Scripture, Scripture reveals that the man Jesus, born of Mary, is NOT the Almighty (as you claimed with your interpretation in the list above). And the angel Gabriel in his announcement to Mary seems rather clear that Jesus would NOT be the Highest or Most High either (cp. Lk 1:32), nor would Jesus be God (cp Lk 1:35).
Suggest praying first for God to open your eyes to the wonders of His word followed by reading/studying scripture. Still remember an English college professor who did not believe God's miracles so taught that the Bible was fictional literature like other human myths.
Thankful for a lesson learned from Fee & Stuart's "How to read the Bible for all its worth." that every word has context in a sentence. Every sentence has context in a paragraph. Every paragraph has context in a larger unit. Prudent to know context while praying for God's insight. Otherwise the Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle with thousands of pieces that are mixed up so the big picture is not visible.
Gabriel's announcement to Mary about The Word (eternal God) becoming flesh (man) includes Psalm 2:7 prophetic fulfillment. Son of God has a Holy human body whose spirit is The Most High so Jesus is both man and God. To me reigning forever is God.
The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
New American Standard Bible, 1995 Edition: Paragraph Version (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Lk 1:30–38.
Curious about your interpretation for the ending of Psalm 2 ? especially the Son ?
Worship the יהוהLORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!
New American Standard Bible, 1995 Edition: Paragraph Version (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Ps 2:11–12.
Keep Smiling
Chalcedonian Creed
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
Now where in this context is it stated that Mary would conceive God? that she would give birth to God (the Highest)? Gabriel's words are plain and clear => SON OF the Most High, SON OF God ...are they not?
I would carefully read, and then understand it within its context ... a first reading already shows that there is nothing about God being a Son or a Son being God.
What does a son inherit from his father ? appearance ? behavior ? spirit ?
God is Holy. Mary's child is Holy (did not inherit sin nature from Adam).
If the Son in Psalm 2:12 is only a man like yourself, then why would his anger matter ? Also how could you take refuge in him ?
If the Son in Psalm 2:12 is God Almighty, then His anger is important. Humans can take refuge in God.
Keep Smiling
Psalm 12 is most likely a "royal" psalm, written, as were many psalms, to express support, praise, and faithful allegiance to a king as God's chosen leader. One resource I consulted on Psalm 12 contends that the psalm may well have been used in royal coronation events.
If it's in fact a royal psalm - and I believe there are strong reasons to believe it is - then no divinity issues arise from its contents. To wit:
To address your questions: The son in Psalm 2.12 is the king God has chosen. THAT'S why his anger would matter, and why people could take refuge (safety) in him (God's king will "break (the conspiring kings) with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel" Psalm 2.9)
So then, if "the Son" is God Almighty, who would be God Almighty's father ?? Are you saying that the Son is also his own Father? Or God Almighty is actually not one, but two -- a son and a father??
Well said, @Bill_Coley ... reading the text and context carefully provides a plain and simple true understanding.
By way of information and to establish one's point, I want to share, that the psalms have been distinguished by various literary types or genres. The biblical psalms must have been composed in the time of David himself when comparing the language of the psalms with that of ancient Ugaritic sources (Ps 2; 16; 18; etc.).
The three main classes are:
Further subdivisions are:
Psalms 2:
Psalm 12: The Contrast Between Human and Divine Promises
Truth found truth shared. I hope this bring in sharper view the essence of these two Psalms. If you need to adjust your thinking, embrace truth! CM
Sources:
-- Psalms, The Anchor Bible Series, 16, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1966), pp. xxix–xxx.
-- C. H. Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, p. 127
Personally not know God's origins, only that God already existed before creation of this world having three intelligent persona's in One True God who deeply Love one another. Thankful for God's Love
design that desires every human to experience intimate Love relationship in God.
The king God chose for Psalm 2:12 is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who does God's Will while sitting on the right hand of God's throne.
Keep Smiling
Your response to Wolfgang reads to me as a declaration of faith, not as an exploration of the biblical witness. You're more than entitled to declare your faith!! But to claim a Trinitarian Godhead is a much different task - and produces a much different result - than does the demonstration of such a Godhead in the fullness of Scripture. With due respect, I believe you have successfully declared your faith, but you have not successfully proven the biblical truth of your claim.
In my view, there is no textual support in Psalm 2 for your view. Yes, the writer of Hebrews imports Psalm 2.7 on two occasions (Heb 1.5, 5.5) but to the psalmist, the son in Psalm 2 is clearly, I contend, a royal figure contemporaneous to the psalmist (see Hebrews 2.6) which means he is NOT a person who will be born in 600-800 years.
Consider some facts of Psalms 2:
Also, consider:
Heb 1.5, in the context of Heb. 1:5-14, uses OT passages to argue that Jesus is superior to angels. The rhetorical question at the beginning of verse 5 shows God never called angels His Son. The OT quotations and their sources are interested to review:
Hebrews -- -- --- Old Testament
The basic points of these passages are that Jesus and His name are superior to angels. I hope this help with the discussion. CM
What words can I use to describe what you believe is impossible ? Jesus = God & Man
John 1:14 states The Word (eternal God in John 1:1) became flesh (human) and dwelled (lived) among us. Apostle John is an eye witness who physically touched Jesus (John 13:25) plus experienced being sent by Jesus with God's authority to do good works (Luke 9:1-6). Matthew 1:23 references Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of Immanuel "God with us" to describe Jesus = God & Man
What is "the mind of the Spirit" in Romans 8:27 ? If the Spirit is only power, how can it have a mind (intelligence) of its own ? Acts 5:1-11 documents deaths of Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit = God
Keep Smiling
My claim in our current exchange is NOT that Jesus as God is impossible; it is that as a whole, the New Testament does not assert that Jesus is God, and in fact asserts that Jesus is NOT God. In my posts in this thread and others, I have made no claims about the possibility of God becoming human... precisely because the NT in my view makes clear that Jesus is not God.
Over the years, we've examined the first chapter of John on many occasions in these threads, never to a result satisfying to all sides. We're not likely to change that pattern now!
In my view, the "Word" of John 1 is God's central message, idea, or vision for humanity and creation - that's a meaning that's at the heart of the Greek word "logos." So when John tells us that the "Word" became flesh and lived among us, he's telling us that God's idea or plan for humanity became flesh (in Jesus), and through that flesh, lived among us. Critical to my assessment of John's use of logos in the first chapter of his Gospel is the fact that after making such a powerful use of the word/image in his prologue, he doesn't return to it for the rest of the Gospel, and it's an image no other NT writer employs.
Then there are dozens of NT references, many that quote Jesus himself. I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so I'll limit my presentation to some examples from the first five chapters of John's Gospel:
Those are but a small portion of the pertinent verses, just in the first chapters of John's Gospel, the Gospel most amenable, in my view, to the claim that Jesus is God. There are many other verses in John, dozens in the Synoptics, and dozens more in the rest of the NT from which the most obvious conclusion is always the same: The observer, the writer, the apostle, the Jesus does NOT believe Jesus is God.
What is the significance to the Trinitarian debate of John's touching of Jesus? Where in the Luke 9 text do you see reference to Jesus' sending them out with "God's authority"? I note that he gave them authority, but I don't see reference to God's authority.
In the Isaiah text, from the testimony of the Hebrew language authorities I consulted, the tense of the verb "to be" in Isiah 7.14 should be present, not future. That is, the Hebrew says a "young woman" (NOT necessarily a virgin!) IS with child, not will be with child. That is, Isaiah tells King Ahaz that the sign he seeks (but doesn't ask for) is already on the way; the young woman is already pregnant... 700 years before the time of Jesus. How do we know the prophesied pregnancy has already begun? Because in Isaiah 7.16 the prophet tells the king that before the child who is to be born knows the difference between good and evil, the land of the two kings Ahaz fears (see Isaiah 7.1) will be deserted, and God will bring great days upon Ahaz and his people (Isaiah 7.17). CLEARLY, in my view, the prophet means to refer to a child who will be born in his and Ahaz' time, not centuries later.
But what about the Matthean reference to Isaiah 7? First, Matthew uses the Septuagint version of the verse, which translates the Hebrew word "almah" ("young woman") into a Greek word that means "virgin." Second, Matthew says Jesus' birth fulfilled Isaiah's prophetic word, and we know that said vision was of the birth of a child who would portend better days. What are those better days? Examine Matthew 1.20-21, where an angel tells Joseph not to cut off his engagement with Mary. The child with whom she is pregnant is from the Holy Spirit, and is to be named Jesus because he will save people from their sins.
That is, Matthew says Jesus will save people, and that he will be called a name that means "God with us." But Immanuel is a name Isaiah said would be applied to a child who had been born 700 years before Jesus, so to the prophet, "God with us" could not have meant "God" since that previous child was not God.
At NO time in his interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' birth does Matthew out and out claim that Jesus is God. Rather, he says Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promise to be with people.
On what basis do you claim that Romans 8.27 refers to Jesus? The "he" or "the one" of the verse, to my reading, clearly refers to God, not to Jesus.
Another reference that contains no reference to Jesus. I read the apostles' reference to the Holy Spirit as synonymous with God.
I don't understand this piece of your post. In what way(s) do you claim that the Genesis verse speaks to the trinitarian debate?
Who Is Jesus?
In the New Testament, there are many claims about Jesus are found. But What does Jesus say of himself? Who of you will refute them? Read and accept:
1). John 5:25-27 – -He is the Son of God and the Son of Man and will raise the dead.
2). John 6:47-48 –- He provides eternal life for those who believe in him.
3). John 10:30-33 -- Jesus is one with God the Father.
4). John 14:6 -- Jesus is the only way to God, truth personified, and life.
5). John 17:5 -- Jesus lived with God before creation.
6). John 18:37 -- Jesus is King.
7). Mk 14:61-62 -- Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. He sits at the right hand of God and will come back on the clouds.
8). Mt 28:19-20 -- Jesus is with us always, even to the end of the age.
Although Jesus was a human being, he claimed to be God’s Son, who became the man in order to save us. He is God and creator (John 1:1-3), judge and king, and will come again. Amen! CM
I will gladly read and accept what these verses of Scripture say ...perhaps I will not accept interpretations you may give to them that do not agree with what the verses say
your summaries agree with what the verses say
This, however, is not what this verse says! And your claim would contradict what the rest of Scripture has to say about Jesus.
these statements summarize what the verses say correctly
Careful ... Jesus speaks to his apostles and gives them a specific command to teach others what they had been commanded by him and then promises to be with them until "the end of the age" (obviously the end of the OT age in which they were living).
The only begotten Son of God was a human being, never some other kind of living being or person (cp Lk 1:35; Mt 1:18ff)
No ... the only begotten Son of God was not someone else who then "became the man".
No ... God, Jesus' Father, is the Creator, the Almighty, the Ancient of Days, etc ...
Jesus was appointed judge by God, he did not appoint himself nor was he of himself the judge (cp. Acts 17:31)
Jesus did come at the end of the age spoken of in his prophecies concerning his coming, which was to be even during the time period of his generation (contemporaries), soon (and not in an unknown future even after alrady 2 millenniums)
Brethren,
Have you not read Matthew 14:33, “You are the Son of God”? Many have questioned, can the title “Son of God” be understood literally? Please read this with a humbled heart:
(a) This title is a messianic title (see Ps 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5). It stresses Jesus’ deity. Jesus used the title very rarely for himself (only in John, e.g., John 11:4). It is one of many titles that Jesus had. In trying to understand who Jesus is, all of them need to be investigated in order to get a total picture.
(b) The word “son” has a broad range of meanings in the original language. Therefore, it is not possible to reduce it to the narrow limits of the English language and pinpoint it to a literal understanding. The sonship of Jesus is attested in connection with:
The Bible is silent on the question of whether this title describes the eternal relationship between Father and Son. In any case, Scripture attributes timeless existence to Jesus. (Isa 9:6; Rev 1:17,18).
(c) During his incarnation Jesus voluntarily subordinated himself to the Father, being the Son of God. This included surrendering the prerogatives but not the nature of the deity. The risen Lord, enthroned as king and priest also voluntarily accepts the priority of the Father, but he and the Father are – according to Scripture – both God, co-eternal and co-equal personalities of one Godhead.
Truth found truth shared. CM
Well, I have read that verse
However one would like to read "Son of God", it plainly does NOT mean "God, the Son"
I endeavor to always do so when reading something ... else I could never learn anything.
Careful ... what is meant with "deity"? "Son of God" does NOT stress that Jesus is Deity, God. On the other hand, Jesus is divine in certain regards .... for example, he displayed a divine character at all times, etc. Being in some regard "divine", does NOT mean that one actually IS God. Compare the Biblical Scriptures, they are divine in regards to inspiration of God origin, but nobody would claim the Bible=God.
See above ..none of these verses states that Jesus is God or Deity.
I would suggest to also be silent where the Bible is silent ... or at least admit that something said about such silent topic is only one's own speculation.
"Existence" does not mean "being alive as a person" ... a new house in our village has existed for many months in the form of word and drawing in the mind and on the paper of the architect, but as an actual house of wood and stone it only has been existing for a few weeks.
This paragraph does really have nothing to do with what Scripture actually says ...it is solely speculation based on false premises.