What Is the Significance of "Son of God"
and "Son of Man?"
by
Jason Dulle
JasonDulle@sbcglobal.net
Question:
What do you see as the significance of the terms "Son of God" and "Son of Man" as used by Jesus? Did He use the former to stress His deity and the latter to stress His humanity, or is there something more to this?
Answer:
I believe Jesus is called the Son of God because He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and thus was God's Son in the truest sense of the Word. God brought Him into existence (as it pertains to His humanity of course). Trinitarians and Oneness believers alike have recognized Jesus' claims to deity by this title. But the title "Son of God" had much more theological meaning behind it. "Son of God" was a title for the Davidic king. The Messiah was to be a son of David, and thus would bear the same title.
In Psalm 2:7 David is called the Son of God (see also Psalm 89:27-29). It was common in those days that when a king would conquer another king, he would leave the conquered as ruler over the kingdom, but that defeated king would be subject to the victorious king. The Hittites were most famous for this type of treaty. The victorious king was called a suzerain, and the defeated king was called a vassal. The language employed in the treaties often called the suzerain "father," and the vassal his "Son." This same language was employed between God and the kings of Judah. David and his descendants were the under-kings of YHWH, making YHWH their father, and they, His sons. We know by the way Jesus used the term, He was declaring Himself to be God. The Jews also understood Him to be mean this. But, when the Jews heard "Son of God," they would also hear "king of Judah." They were waiting for the Messiah, who would be of David's lineage, and who would be king over Israel and rule forever. As David's seed had borne the title of "Son of God" (II Samuel 7:12-16), so likewise Jesus Christ bore that title. Unlike all other Davidic kings, however, Jesus was also truly the "Son of God" by birth. This only goes to show that the messianic titles are packed with meaning, and many times have more than one reference as used by Jesus.
As far as the messianic title "Son of Man," I do not believe that it only refers to Jesus' humanity. I know that it is used in this manner numerous times in Scripture, especially in Ezekiel, where God commonly refers to Ezekiel as "son of man." I do not divorce this basic meaning from Jesus' use of the title, but I believe that this was not Jesus' primary referent.
In Daniel's vision of the four beasts arising from sea, the term "son of man" is used of one who approached the Ancient of Days, and was given ruling authority, honor, and power. All peoples served him. He is said to have an eternal authority and a kingdom that will not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14). Although Daniel 7:21-22 identifies the son of man as the "saints," many expositors see this as a dual reference. It seems to be referring both to the coming Messiah and to the saints. This makes logical sense if Jesus is the king, and we rule and reign with Him (Revelation 20:4, 6). The reference could be to both the Messiah, and the saints who reign in the kingdom with Him. The Son of Man brings the kingdom to the saints. It seems that the "son of man" must be seen as a divine being because he has an eternal authority and kingdom. This is especially telling because the NT declares that the kingdom is Jesus', and that His kingdom will have no end.
Although much more evidence could be put forth to confirm this, I bring this up to say that Jesus' use of "Son of Man" most probably arises from the special occurrence in Daniel, not the normal usage as found in Ezekiel. Jesus, by calling Himself "Son of Man," was not merely calling attention to the fact that He was a man, but that He is the Messiah pictured in Daniel's apocalypse who was coming to receive the kingdom of God that was to come into the world. As in the term "Son of God," the connotation that Jesus gave the Jews by using the title "Son of Man" would have been that He is the king of the coming kingdom. Both "Son of God" and "Son of Man" have their primary reference to "king." Although "Son of God" does convey the idea of deity, and "Son of Man" does convey the idea of humanity, defining these terms in these ways is simplistic, and not informed by the OT, in which Jesus and all other Jews who heard Jesus use these terms were well-versed in. My treatment of "Son of God" and "Son of Man" has been very brief, but most comprehensive works on Christology will address these terms in more detail if you are interested in further study.
Email
IBS | Statement of Faith | Home
| Browse by Author | Q
& A
Links | Virtual
Classroom | Copyright | Submitting
Articles | Search