The Son of Man
June 4th, 2007 by AlexH
Of all the titles attributed to him this was Jesus’ favourite. By that I mean it was the one most commonly used by Jesus himself. In the gospels Jesus is recorded as calling himself the Son of Man 84 times and the Son of God only 6 times. That is exactly 14 times as often (the number 7, the symbol of completion, times 2!).
The Bible is God’s way of revealing himself to us. The best way to gain a proper understanding of the meaning of any term used in the Bible is to study how it is used there, using scripture to interpret scripture. Paul called this process ‘comparing spiritual things with spiritual’. Jesus himself derived his identity from the Old Testament scriptures. Check it. There is nothing he claimed about himself which had not been written before in the Law and the Prophets.
Hebrews 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
He came to fulfil the volume of the book- the Scriptures. By them he knew the will of his God. The first time in the entire Bible the term ‘son of man’ is used, it emphatically states that:
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent
This would be a strange way for Jesus to describe himself to a Jewish audience steeped in the Old Testament scriptures, if he was trying to tell them he was God Almighty in the flesh! Throughout the Bible ‘son of man’ only ever means human. This is reinforced again and again through the use of Hebraic parallelisms:
Job 25:6
How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?
Psalms 8:4
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Job 35:8
Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man.
Psalms 80:17
Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.
Psalms 144:3
LORD, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him!
The person most often called Son of Man in the Bible is the prophet Ezekiel. God calls him ‘son of man’ some 94 times. But out of the 108 times the word is used in the Old Testament only once does it ever refer to the Messiah. Also, there is a subtle but significant difference in the way that Jesus used the word. He called himself ‘the Son of Man’- or to Jewish ears ‘the Human’. The concept at the forefront of Jesus’ mind as he called himself ‘the Son of Man’ was both rich and profound. It comes from Daniel’s vision:
Daniel was a statesman and received visions of various ungodly world kingdoms. These were symbolised as fierce beasts (In contrast to the Human) and climaxing in the rule of the ‘little horn’ or antichrist. But all of these thrones paled into insignificance in contrast to what he saw next.
Daniel 7:9-10
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
This ‘Ancient of Days’ is none other than God Almighty. Next, Daniel sees another figure approach one he could only describe as ‘the Son of Man’
Daniel 7:13-14
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
When Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man he was not only asserting his absolute and authentic humanity, and by implication that he was most certainly not God Almighty, but also laying claim to the everlasting throne his Father would give him. The throne of David.
Isaiah 9:7
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
His accusers understood this and used his ‘admission’ of it as the grounds for his crucifixion:
Matthew 26:63-66
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
Jesus proclaimed his everlasting dominion over the Kingdom of God, seated on David’s throne- not by virtue of him being God, but by virtue of his being ‘the Son of Man’ to whom God, the Ancient of days, would give it.
Of all the ways to counter the concept of the trinity, I believe this one is the most convincing. How can anyone deny the logic laid out in God’s Word?
God is not a ‘son of man’:
Numbers 23:19:
God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (ESV)
The Messiah is a ‘son of man’:
Daniel 7:13-14
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Jesus called himself a ‘son of man’ numerous times. Two clear examples:
Luke 22:48:
but Jesus said to him, “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?”
Mark 14:60-62
60And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” 61But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Jesus quotes Daniel 7:13 to establish that he is the ‘son of man’ prophesied as the Messiah.
Therefore, Jesus is not God!
Great observation, Frank D. Even so, a Trinitarian would probably respond to this line of reasoning by saying that when Num 23.19, since God had not yet become flesh, he was not a Son of Man, but after the incarnation (i.e. John 1.1) he is a Son of Man.
Hi Sean,
and the trinitarian would claim that that he was “the eternal Son of God” prior to being “the Son of Man” ….. the problem with this idea is that there is no such information found in the Scriptures.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Good point, Wolfgang…the Trinity argument is clearly unfalsifiable, which makes it so difficult to disprove. The only way to get anywhere with the Trinity is to require that the advocate derive the doctrine from Scripture, rather than assume it is true and argue on supporting verses.
Sean, By that logic the meaning of the Old Testement changed when Jesus was begotten. But, how can that be justified? What is the chapter and verse? How can we hide God’s word in our hearts so that we might not sin against Him if the meanings of His word changes? All of Psalm 119 is ripe with the delights knowing God’s word. How can we delight in a word that changes?
Besides, Malachi 3:6 states God does not change (and I believe it is refering to changing His mind):
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Also, Jesus is still a man:
1 Tim 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
so that means the first sentence of Num 23:19 is false also.
In circular reasoning, God tells us he is not a man and therefore cannot lie. But, trinitarians would have us believe that God changed his mind and became a man which would make Num 23:19 a lie…
PS: (I know you are taking up the other side of the debate and I appreciate it. It helps to clearify if there are holes in my reasoning.)
God Bless,
Frank
Hi Sean,
trinitarians argue normally on assumption … such as, “Jesus was BOTH God and man”, and then when we bring up a point that would disprove that Jesus can be God, they simply say that Jesus was that “as a man”, while maintaining that he could be God nevertheless.
Another assumption is “Jesus was BOTH the Son of God and the Son of man” as if the one placed him into the category of “God” and the other into the category of “man”.
The truth is this: Biblically it IS IMPOSSIBLE for a living being to be BOTH God and man (cp. the various scriptures already cited in this topic, such as Num 23,19). The underlying premise that Jesus was BOTH God and man is in itself false, and there is no record in Scripture which would indicate otherwise.
See, there is no such thing as a both ROUND and SQUARE table. Yes, there are ROUND table and there are SQUARE tables. but one cannot “re-define” and/or “assume” that there is such a thiing as a SQUARE ROUND table …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
This happens every time we enter the discussion with trinitarians. We bring up verses or conceptual problems with believing that Jesus is God and they instinctively fall back on their doctrine of hypostatic union (the dual natures of Christ). However, this doctrine was the last to evolve. The Apostles’ Creed (which any one of us can agree with) was written in the 2nd century. The Nicene Creed of a.d. 325 adapted the Apostles’ Creed and made the Father and Son God. Then in the Constantinopolitan Creed of a.d. 381 added the holy spirit as a co-equal, co-essential, co-eternal member of the godhead. Then a long time passed before they worked out the Chalcedonian Creed of a.d. 451 in which the dual natures of Christ were asserted. So, historically speaking, the proto-catholics developed their christology in several incremental moves (1) Jesus pre-exists [c. middle of 2nd century] (2) Jesus is God not created being [early 4th century] (3) the holy spirit is also 100% God [late 4th century] (4) dual natures–Jesus is 100% man and 100% God [middle of the 5th century].
So, this is what bothers me. The latest doctrine to develop is the first doctrine they employ. Wolfgang, you are definately right…there is no way to have both humanity and divinity in the same person. It would be possible if these two natures were compatible. However, a property of being God is to know everything that can be known (omniscience) and Jesus specifically denied that he knew everything (Mark 13.32). Another property of God is that he is immortal (i.e. cannot die…cf. 1 Tim 1.17; 6.16) however Jesus did die for our sins. A third is that God cannot be tempted (James 1.13) yet Jesus was tempted in all points like us (Hebrews 4.15). So the dual natures idea simply contradicts itself and is the first layer of trinitarian theology that must fall if one is to get anywhere at all.
Sean, That is the agrument that just makes me shake my head. When confronted with biblical evidence that disproves even one aspect of the trinity (equality, omniscience, co-eternality, etc..) the trinitarian fallback position is Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Seems like an ‘out of context’ leg to stand on and it is abused by numerous denominations to justify all sorts of dogma.
With the purpose of trying to drill into this topic a little deeper, how do trinitarians handle their apparent changing nature of God?
1. If their triune God existed eternally
2. And if Jesus was not a ‘son of man’ at the time Daniel 7:13 was written
3. Did the trinity stop existing when Jesus became a ‘son of man’?
4. Now that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God and he is still a man, did the nature of the trinity change again?
I understand that the verse often used to support this inconsistancy is Phil 2:5-11:
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Alex did an excelent job explaining this passage at
http://kingdomready.org/topics/audio.php?link=http://www.theradicalreformation.com/media/audio/god/AlexHall_PhilippiansII_TBS
Frank,
good points. there is no question that there was a massive change in the son of God if he became human (presumably while remaining God). I questioned Russ on this in our debate on the Trinity and he was unable to cope with John 14.28, “the Father is greater than I.” Obviously “greater than” is not equal, it is an inequality.
click here to listen to it [8:49]