Son of Man, Son of God

1. Introduction
2. “Son of God” in the New Testament
   1. In the Synoptic Gospels
   2. In John’s Gospel
3. “Sons of God” in the Old Testament
4. “Son of Man” in the Old Testament
5. “Son of Man” in the New Testament
6. The bottom line

---

Introduction

I love, and have a very large library of, DVD sets from The Great Courses, which I first learned of from their advertisements in World Magazine and other Christian periodicals. I have learned over the years, though, that their many theological courses are useless except as a guide for understanding the modernist opposition. Professor Bart D. Ehrman, a graduate of the Princeton Theological Seminary, has recorded one such course, 24 half-hour lectures titled “How Jesus Became God.” Ehrman is a prolific author, boasting many published books with provocative titles, all based on a common theme, that the Christianity taught by Conservative Evangelicals like me is a lie, based on faulty, unprovable history and a completely unreliable Bible.

Skeptical scholars often make a big deal of the fact that “Jesus never called Himself the Son of God”, only the “Son of Man”, that is, a “human being.” This, they say, means that He never meant to present Himself as such, and it was only later that Christians “deified” Him.

But is that true?

“Son of God” in the New Testament

“Son of God” in Greek is υἱός θεός (huios theos). As a Trinitarian title, I don’t think there is anything about that that I need to explain here.

The term is used freely in reference to Jesus in Acts; in Paul’s letters to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, and Ephesus; in Hebrews; in John’s letters; and in Revelation. The confusion arises from its appearance or absence in the Gospels.

In the Gospels, Jesus is addressed as Son of God by others: the Angel who announced Mary’s pregnancy; John the Baptist at and after Jesus’ baptism; the Tempter in the Wilderness; various demons; His disciples in periods of particular awe; Martha after Lazarus was resurrected; some Sanhedrin members and other witnesses of His crucifixion (mostly in sarcasm); and by Roman soldiers who felt the earthquake as He died.

When appearing in plural form (υἱοὶ θεός), Sons of God in the New Testament always refers to Christians. Galatians 3:26 explains that we are “sons of God through faith.” A clue to why we share the title with the heavenly host (see Gods and Demons) is found in Jesus’ answer to a scribe who tried to trip Him up with a loaded question about marriage in heaven:

Luke 20:35 (CJB) emphasis mine
[35] but those judged worthy of the age to come, and of resurrection from the dead, do not get married, [36] because they can no longer die. Being children of the Resurrection, they are like angels; indeed, they are children of God.

In the Synoptic Gospels

It is certainly true that Jesus Himself avoided the terminology right up until His trial, but there was a practical reason for that. Although there was a strain of Hebrew theology that speculated on the Messiah as deity, that was a minority view. Most of the sages were expecting a human Messiah who would defeat the Roman oppressors and usher in an age of spiritual renewal, prophecy and miracles. To openly claim deity would have, and indeed ultimately did, lead to Jesus’ arrest by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy. Pilate was evidently not overly concerned about a political threat from Jesus and His followers, but to openly claim Messiahship could nevertheless lead to arrest by the Romans as a potential revolutionary. In fact, under duress from the Judeans, that was the charge that Pilate used to justify His execution.

Not only did Jesus avoid using the terminology Himself, He also frequently told others not to speak of it. For example, in Capernaum:

Luke 4:40–41 (CJB)
[40] After sunset, all those who had people sick with various diseases brought them to Yeshua, and he put his hands on each one of them and healed them; [41] also demons came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But, rebuking them, he did not permit them to say that they knew he was the Messiah.

There were a number of occasions when Jesus’ exhortation for silence was ignored, and there were a few where He commanded someone to go ahead and speak freely. Notably, in Gadara, after chasing the legion of demons into a herd of pigs:

Mark 5:18–20 (ESV)
[18] As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed with demons begged him that he might be with him. [19] And he did not permit him but said to him, “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” [20] And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled.

The difference on this occasion was that the Gadarene people were chasing Him out of the country, but He wanted to come back later. They were scared of the Jew who could heal so effectively and cause the suicidal stampede of their swine herds. And of course, angry at the economic consequences of the latter. But this was Decapolis, a pagan territory outside of Judean jurisdiction where the risk of arrest was low. Since Jesus was planning to return to the region very soon, He wanted the healed “demoniac” to prepare the way for His return. Which the man evidently did very effectively! Attitudes in the Gadarene region had completely changed when He returned. “Multitudes” of the Gadarenes turned out eagerly to hear Him preach. That could only be due to the tireless work of the dedicated new convert.

Note: Parallel versions of this story mention not one, but two possessed Gadarenes healed by Jesus. As is frequently the case in the Gospels, the authors mentioned only what they individually found important in the circumstances. Just as in the story of the ten healed lepers, I think that only one reacted with gratitude. Mark ignored the one who proved inconsequential. In the case of the lepers, both the gratitude of the one and the ingratitude of the nine were integral to the moral lesson.

Despite what I have said above, I think that Jesus most likely did speak freely about His sonship when there were no hostile spies present (see my article about the Pharisees). After the crucifixion, Jesus was “gone”, but His followers were no doubt considered heretics by the Sanhedrin. Since the Synoptic Gospels were written and circulated while the Sanhedrin still existed, I think their authors remained circumspect about reporting His use of the term.

In John’s Gospel

John, however, wrote his Gospel after AD 70. The Temple, the Sadducees, and the Sanhedrin were gone, and the Jewish resistance temporarily suppressed. Jesus was gone and His disciples largely scattered. Caution was no longer necessary. John recorded several instances where Jesus, at least by clear implication, claimed to be the Son of God:

John 3:18 (CJB)
[18] Those who trust in him are not judged; those who do not trust have been judged already, in that they have not trusted in the one who is God’s only and unique Son.

John 5:25–27 (CJB)
[25] Yes, indeed! I tell you that there is coming a time—in fact, it’s already here—when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who listen will come to life. [26] For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has given the Son life to have in himself. [27] Also he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man [the Messiah].

John 10:36–38 (ESV)
[36] do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? [37] If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; [38] but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

John 11:3–4 (ESV)
[3] So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” [4] But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”

All of the above are “red letter” references. Those who say that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God are either biblically illiterate, or disingenuous.

“Sons of God” in the Old Testament

This term appears only 6 times in the English Standard version of the Old Testament, and each time as a plural, בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ (Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm, “the Sons of God”). In all cases it refers to higher-ranking members of the Heavenly Host (messenger “angels” are the lowest rank):

• In Genesis 6, two verses refer to “Watchers” (a class named only in Daniel and a number of extrabiblical works), who take on human flesh and rebelliously mate with human women.
• Deuteronomy 32:8–9 refers to rebellious beings who God exiled to earth and gave oversight of the pagan nations (some English translations incorrectly render the Hebrew, Bene haElohim, as “the sons of Israel”, because their grasp of angelology is deficient).
• Three passages in Job speak of God’s Divine Council, where The Accuser appears at the throne to report on conditions on earth and is challenged to find fault in Job.

“Son of Man” in the Old Testament

The Hebrew term, בֶּן־אָדָם֙ (ben adam), or its Aramaic equivalent, בַּר־אֱנָשׁ (bar ‘enash), both meaning “son of man”, is used many times in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and in Daniel 8 to mean, simply, a human being. That’s the default meaning, certainly. But in Daniel 7:13, the prophet is given the following vision:

Daniel 7:13–14 (CJB) emphasis mine
[13] “I kept watching the night visions,
when I saw, coming with the clouds of heaven,
someone like a son of man.
He approached the Ancient One
and was led into his presence.
[14] To him was given rulership,
glory and a kingdom,
so that all peoples, nations and languages
should serve him.
His rulership is an eternal rulership
that will not pass away;
and his kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.

Someone who looks like a human is led into God’s presence and is given an eternal rulership over the entire world. This is the definitive prophecy of the coming Messiah, and it is the reason the Jews were expecting a warrior-Messiah. Other prophetic writings and traditions filled in detail, but this was considered the formal and most clear announcement. For understanding both the Old and New Testaments, I consider this to be perhaps the most important Christological passage in the Bible.

“Son of Man” in the New Testament

In all of human history, I seriously doubt that there are many humans who have gone around referring to themselves as “the son of man” or as “the human” on a regular basis. I, for one, only use the term “human” for myself when speaking to my cat. Jesus spoke frequently of “the Son of Man”, and when He did so, all of His hearers would have immediately realized that He was talking about Daniel’s expected Messiah, even if a few might have been slow to catch on that He was adopting that persona for Himself.

Messiahship claims were frequent in Judea, so one of the tasks that the Sanhedrin took on was to evaluate anyone who seemed to be making the claim or who they thought might eventually do so. That’s why a contingent of scribes and Pharisees were assigned to follow Jesus around. He knew that when He eventually made an explicit claim, He would have to “put up or shut up.” Consequently, He waited until the time of His own choosing and did it in a way as to leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that He was doing so. That was at His trial.

The bottom line

By speaking of the Son of Man in the third person, Jesus avoided unambiguously declaring Himself to be Messiah, but it would have been obvious to any practicing Jew that He was referring to Himself. His signs and miracles reinforced the unspoken claim. Therefore, it is ignorant to say that Jesus never claimed to be God!

Liberal colleges and seminaries teach a simplistic and biased theology that ignores the cultural realities of life in ancient (prehistory through Persian) and classical (Greko-Roman, i.e., Second Temple era through early Rabbinic) Judaism. Unfortunately, the traditions emerging from these institutions are not being adequately debated because, though more benignly biased, conservative educations also tend to be simplistic, and often bound to unwarranted medieval traditions.

---