==================
Son of Man Vs. Son of the Man
Many do not realize that there are two different expressions in the are usually rendered in translations as "Son of Man." The actual phrase "son of man," with the indefinite "man," as applied to Jesus only appears in the Bible in a very few instances, usually referring to Jesus in the likeness of a son of man. Jesus himself -- in the Gospels -- uses the anarthrous "son of man," or "son of a man," of himself only one time as recorded in John 5:27. (See below) Only in this one verse does Jesus identify himself as being a human being. All the rest of the instances where we find "Son of Man" in most translations of the Gospels, it is not the anarthrous term used in John 5:27, but rather it is definite, "Son of the Man."
The indefinite form of "son of a man" is also found in Daniel 7:13,14, which speaks prophetically of the Messiah. However, here is it qualified with "likeness," or some translations simply use "like." The prophecy is speaking of Jesus at a future time when God was to exalt Jesus with a bodily glory far above the angels (Acts 2:33,36; 5:31; Philippians 2:9; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 1:4,6; 1 Peter 3:22), and he would no longer in the days of his flesh, a human being of flesh, a little lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:9; 5:7) By qualifying the term "likeness of a son of man," it is not saying that Jesus was still to be a man, and yet Jesus was in a "likeness" of a son of a man. In what way? Jesus, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), had experienced the pain, suffering, temptations, and sorrow as all other men, yet without sin. Thus, Jesus will forever be like a son of man, although he is no longer actually a human being, with earthly, fleshly glory that is a little lower than the angels. -- 1 Corinthians 15:39-41; Hebrews 2:9.
The expression most often used by Jesus of himself, however, is not the anarthrous son of a man, but in the Greek it has the definite article before "man," which means that it could be rendered as "Son of the Man." Why does Jesus apply this title to himself? The claim often made is that this designates him to Jesus because he was begotten of a man, and thus it is alleged to designate Jesus as a man. The phrase Jesus often used by Jesus of himself is not the same as the phrase used in Psalm 8:4; of Ezekiel many times, or as used in Hebrews 2:6. "Son of man" in Psalm 8:4 and through Ezekiel as also in Hebrews 2:5 is without a definite article, which could be translated as "son of a man." The phrase Jesus often used of himself was with the definite article, which could be rendered as "Son of the Man." Most translations, however, do not show this distinction, but render both phrases as "Son of Man."
It should be apparent that Jesus -- in using the phrase "Son of the Man," of himself -- was speaking of himself as the Son of one man in particular. Who was this? We believe that it refers to his being the son of the man, David, of the seed of David.
Psalms 89:36 - His seed will endure forever, His throne like the sun before me. -- World English.
Jesus is that promised seed of David. The prophets of old foretold many times of a coming Messiah who was sit on David's throne. (Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Psalm 132:11) The New Testament tells us that Jesus was that seed of David, who sits on the throne of David. (Luke 1:32; John 7:42; Acts 2:30; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8) Thus, we conclude that the title "Son of the Man", is a Messianic title designating Jesus as being the promised son of the man, David. Indeed, a comparison of scriptures reveals that "Son of the Man" is a Messianic title designating Jesus as the promised son of the man, David. -- Matthew 1:1; 9:6,27; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8,23,32,40; 13:37,41; 16:13,27,28; 17:9,12,22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18; 22:42; 24:27,30,37,39,44; 25:13,31; 26:2,24; 26:45; Luke 1:32,69; 3:31; John 7:42; Acts 13:34; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy2:8; Revelation 3:7; 22:16 -- not an exhaustive list.
See also our study:
Seed of David
Seed of David
Son of God
Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, both while he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7; (See Matthew 3:17; 17:5)), and also after he had been exalted far above all dominion, with the exception of his God. (Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 4:14) Referring to before he came into the world of mankind, Jesus said:
John 10:36 - Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'
Also, Jesus spoke of being with his Father before the world of mankind had been made. -- John 17:1,5.
This would indicate that Jesus, before he became flesh, was known as the Son of God in heaven before his Father sent him into the world of mankind. The scriptures reveal that at the beginning of the world of mankind that there were many "sons of God" in heaven. (Job 38:4-7) Jesus was the firstborn Son of God, and it was through that firstborn son that all of the other angelic "sons of God" were created. (Colossians 1:15,17) Thus, this would make Jesus the only "son" directly created by God. His being the firstborn, therefore, gives him preeminence over all the other spirit sons of God. - Colossians 1:18.
Links to studies related to Colossians 1:15-18
Links to studies related to Colossians 1:15-18
We will conclude with the words of Benjamin Wilson (names of Bible books expanded):
If Christ was the Son of God only as we are sons of God, then he was not the son of God, but a son; nor would there be any more reason in confessing him to be the Son of the living God, as Peter and all the apostles did, than in confessing some other believer to be God’s son. But Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and consequently the Messiah. He also required his disciples to believe this truth. (See John 9:35-37; 10:36) The belief that Jesus, the Son of Man, was also the Christ, the Son of the living God, lies at the very foundation of Christianity — on it the Church was to be built. (Matthew 16:16-18) Jesus was more than an adopted son by faith–was more than a begotten son by the word of truth; he was “the only begotten of the Father,” (John 1:14; 3:16; 1 John 4:9). The Father with audible voice, proclaimed him as his beloved Son, (Matthew 3:17; 17:5). Paul calls him God’s own Son, and his dear son, (Galatians 4:4-5; Colossians 1:13).
---------------------------------
Son of Man a Common Jewish Title
One objects that the term “son of man” was a common title used by Jews that meant that the person was simply a human. According to this reasoning, Jesus was both “son of man” — a human being, and “Son of God” — alleged to mean that he was also the Supreme Being. The argument is usually vaguely put forth, yet sometimes declared to “clearly” show that Jesus was both man and the Supreme Being. We have never seen any attempt to explain how Jesus was and is supposedly still two “beings” at once: the Supreme Being as well as a human being. This would, in effect, mean that Jesus is two persons with two different sentiencies, one which is limited to that of being a man, a little lower than the angels, and another that is the omniscient sentiency of the Supreme Being.
Of course, we do believe that the Greek anarthrous expression “son of man” does in a general way refer to an offspring of a human being. Nevertheless, there is scriptural proof that in the Greek the definite expression “son of the man” is a Messianic title that refers to a certain offspring of a certain man, that is, it refers to the long waited for Messiah, who was to a son of a man in a special way, that is, the son of the man, David. In the Messianic sense as related to the promises, “son of man”, “Son of God”, as well as “Son of David”, are expressions that are used almost interchangeably.
Once Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say that the Son of [the ] Man is?” (Matthew 16:13, New American Standard — NAS) Notice how the title is used. It is not used as though it were speaking of any son of any man, but it is used as though it was being understood as referring to a specific son of a certain man. Thus, we can see that this title was indeed being used by the Jews in a specific way, that is, as referring to promises related to one who was to come as the son of a specific man, that is, the Son of David.
The disciples responded: “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:14, NAS) From this we can see that the Jews did have a specific application of the term “the Son of Man” in mind, that is, the promised Messiah. They were not expecting the Messiah to be the Supreme Being and also a human being.
Jesus then asked them: “But who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15) Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) From his answer, we determine that the expression “Son of the Man” was being considered as related to the promises concerning the Messiah and “Son of the Living God.” In other words, “the Son of the Man” is made equal to “Son of the Living God”. It was evidently an expression being used by the Jews in general as denoting the promised one, the promised Messiah, the Son of David.
John 5:27
Another objection is that Wilson stated: “The phrase [Son of the Man] as used by Jesus is always in the emphatic form, though our English versions do not show it.” Yet John 5:27 are the words of Jesus, but in this place, the expression is anarthrous, and could be rendered “son of a man”. Doesn’t this show that Jesus was being given the judgment because, not only was he the Supreme Being, but he was also a son of a man, that is, human?
John 5:27 states: “He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.” (World English Bible translation) We answer that yes, Wilson evidently did overlook that this instance Jesus did not use the definite article. Jesus several times refers to himself as “Son” and to the only true Supreme Being (John 17:1,3) as his Father in the context of John 5:27. Nothing in the context shows that Jesus is being referred to as Supreme Being. Nevertheless, our trinitarian neighbors wish to read into the two expressions that somehow this makes Jesus a hypostatic union — both the Supreme Being and human being. In reality, there is no need to read such into what Jesus said. The statement is that God, the only true Supreme Being, the God and Father of Jesus, gave to the Son the authority to execute judgment “because” he is a son of man. We are left wondering why there would be any merit of Jesus’ simply being the son of any man that would be the “cause” that he would receive authority to execute judgment. The point seems to be that as pointed out in Hebrews 2:17; 5:8, he was made like his brothers, and, his sufferings while his full obedience qualified him to be given the authority to judge. Nevertheless, this was not simply “because” Jesus was the son of any man, such as Joseph, his “foster” father, for if he had been, he would have been a sinner just as Joseph; rather Jesus was counted as the promised Son of David, to whom the promises belong, having been given a special body untainted by the sin of Adam. (Romans 5:12-19; Hebrews 10:5) Thus, we have no reason to believe that Jesus intended the expression “Son of Man” in John 5:27 to mean that he was simply of a son of any man, for such a generalization would additionally make him a sinner as all men. It is to the Son of David the promises are made concerning authority and judgment. — Psalm 2:6-9; 132:11; Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:1; Jeremiah 22:30; 23:5; Matthew 9:6; 12:8; 25:31; Matthew 26:64; 28:18; Mark 2:10,28; 13:26; 14:52; Luke 1:32; 5:24; 6:5; 21:27; 22:69; John 5:27; 3:13; Acts 13:34; Ephesians 1:15-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2.
Son of Adam?
Some say that the expression “Son of Man” simply means that Jesus was the Son of Adam, basing this on the idea that the Hebrew word for “Adam” means “man”, as used in Daniel 8:17. Others claim that Jesus spoke in Hebrew and used the exact term as recorded in Daniel 8:17. While we might consider that Jesus was indeed counted, or reckoned, as a son of Adam, due to the lineage of his foster father, and his mother, from the usage of the phrase in the New Testament, we highly doubt that this is what Jesus had in mind by the expression, “Son of the Man”, as he applied this to himself. There are some who go off into even greater extremes and claim that this title means that Jesus was actually a reincarnation of Adam. How this phrase should show that Jesus is a reincarnation of Adam is vaguely argued, to say the least, for how can stating that one is the son of a person mean that the son is the one of whom he is the son? At any rate, we believe it best to simply stay by the scriptures, rather than add all this extra-Biblical philosophy to the scriptures.
Nevertheless, we need to bear out that if Jesus had been the son of Adam in the sense that all mankind is, this would have made him also a sinner like all of us. Jesus actually had no father on earth, and thus was not contaminated with Adamic sin that pervades mankind. (Romans 5:12-19) Adam lost the dominion for man because of his sin, so that now we do not yet see all things in subjection to man. (Hebrews 2:8) Jesus did come as a human, a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory, and provided the redemption price to restore this glory and dominion to man (not to angels). — Hebrews 2:9.
Although Jesus was not actually under the condemnation through Adam (in him was life — John 1:4), he did willingly submit to undergoing the penalty of the condemnation in order to take the condemnation off Adam and the race in Adam’s loins. (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9) It is in this manner that he who knew no sin was sin for us. — 1 Corinthians 5:21.
Thus the term, the Son of the Man, is not being used to represent one in condemnation, which would be the case had Jesus actually been born simply as a “son of Adam” just as the rest of the human race, for the human race are children of Adam, and through Adam are sinful flesh, dying (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:12-19 – See New American Standard), since through Adam the many — the whole human race descended from Adam — are made sinners. Had Jesus been of such sinful stock, he could not have had life (John 1:4), nor could he have died for our sins. As the son of the man, having received a specially prepared body from God (Hebrews 10:5), Jesus in the days of his flesh was indeed, the Son of God, as was Adam before Adam sinned, the sinless Adam being a type of the Messiah. (Luke 3:38; Romans 5:14) Nevertheless, the title, the Son of the Man, refers more especially to the inheritance of the higher dominion that is to restore man’s glory and dominion over the animal kingdom. — Daniel 2:35,44; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 16:13,27; 20:30,31; 21:29,15; 22:42; Mark 10:47,48; 12:35; Luke 1:32; 18:38,39; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 20:1-5.
Jesus was counted, or reckoned, as the seed of David because of his parents, having been born of woman under the Law, even though Jesus’ actual father was God in heaven. Jesus was therefore that antitype of Adam, who, before he sinned, had God as his Father, (Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12) Jesus’ human soul, including his body and his blood, was not tainted by the sin of Adam, as are the rest of mankind. How did Jesus’ body come down from heaven? Does this mean that Jesus was a human with a body of flesh before coming into the world? We know that Jesus’ body was formed in the womb of Mary, but the conception of the flesh was from the God of Jesus by means of the holy spirit. (Matthew 1:20) This does not mean that the flesh that was conceived — begotten — was God Almighty, but rather, the scripture says that Jesus’ body was prepared for him by his God (Hebrews 10:5), for the purpose of its being an offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:10; John 6:51) Jesus spoke of his body, his flesh, in John 6:32 as symbolically the “bread of life” that was from the only true God, his Father, who sent Jesus. “My Father gives you the true bread out of heaven.” (John 17:1,3) Thus, while his body was formed in the womb of Mary, the God of Jesus was the one who prepared his body. His body was not tainted by the sinful flesh of mankind. (Romans 8:3) Jesus was without sin, he never fell short of the glory of God, as those who are dying “in Adam”. (Romans 3:23; 1 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5) He was not ‘by nature a child of wrath’ as mankind in general, due to the sin of Adam. (Ephesians 2:3) Having no sin, the was the “bread of life”. In him was life, a sinless life, equal ot that of Adam’s before Adam sinned, which he could offer in sacrifice for the world of mankind dying in Adam — the just for the unjust. (John 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18) He could offer his flesh — his humanity — as a sacrifice for sin, and thus by our symbolically eating and partaking of his flesh, through faith in him, we can have life.
Matthew 16:13-16
Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
Matthew 16:14 They said, “Some say John the Baptizer, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”
Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
The thought is presented that these scriptures present Jesus’ alleged dual natures above, one “nature” being that of a human being, “the Son of Man”, and another nature being that of the God being, represented in the expression “the Son of the living God.” What is being imagined is that “Son of Man” means his humanity, while “Son of God” means that he is the Most High.
Actually, there is nothing at all in the verses given that give us any reason to think Jesus possesses two levels of sentiency at once, one alleged to be that of the only Most High, while the other would be that of a human being, confined to a body of flesh.
The expression “Son of Man”, as already shown, should actually be “the son of the man”; the expression represents Jesus as the promised son of the man, David, who was to be the one Anointed by the only true God.
Peter stated to Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” “The Christ” — the Anointed One — obviously refers to an event that is performed by “the [unipersonal] living God”, and Peter’s later statement agrees with this:
Acts 2:36 — “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Was Jesus “made … Christ” in his humanity, or was he made Christ in his alleged being like the Most High? The trinitarian, if he agrees that it was in his humanity that Jesus was “made Christ”, logically, would have to further create assumptions so as to separate Peter’s expression “You are the Christ” from “the Son of the Living God” as to apply “You are the Christ” to his humanity and then apply “the Son of the Living God” to his alleged Supreme God being. If one claims that it was the alleged Supreme Being Jesus who was anointed, then one has to create many assumptions beyond what is written and add these assumptions to the scriptures in order to have the scriptures appear to say that it was one person of the Supreme Being who anointed another person of the Supreme Being as “the Christ”.
Actually, Peter does not say that Jesus is “God”, but rather that Jesus is “the Son of the Living God”. The word “God” here refers to only person, and “the Son” is excluded from being “the Living God” who is referred to. Jesus is not “the Living God” of whom he is the Son.
Daniel 7:13,14
Some claim that in Daniel 7:13,14, the anarthrous “son of a man” is applied to Jesus’ return in the “clouds”. We have given attention to this in our study “Ancient of Days“, which please see. Suffice it to say that the most scriptural conclusion is that ‘son of a man’ in Daniel 7:13 simply refers symbolically of Jesus’ being the likeness of a son of a man, having obtained from his past human experience characteristics of man which enables him to sympathize with humans, not that he actually would be a son of a man. We know that Jesus gave his human existence in sacrifice for our sins (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18); Jesus is no longer a son of a man, for he is, then he would still be a little lower than the angels, rather than exalted high above the angels. — Psalm 8:4,5; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Philippians 2:9; Hebrews 1:6; 2:6,7,9; 1 Peter 3:22.
The idea that Jesus has two “natures”, or levels of being, at once, has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what is stated in Daniel 7:13 as well as any other scripture.
Son of Man a Common Jewish Title
One objects that the term “son of man” was a common title used by Jews that meant that the person was simply a human. According to this reasoning, Jesus was both “son of man” — a human being, and “Son of God” — alleged to mean that he was also the Supreme Being. The argument is usually vaguely put forth, yet sometimes declared to “clearly” show that Jesus was both man and the Supreme Being. We have never seen any attempt to explain how Jesus was and is supposedly still two “beings” at once: the Supreme Being as well as a human being. This would, in effect, mean that Jesus is two persons with two different sentiencies, one which is limited to that of being a man, a little lower than the angels, and another that is the omniscient sentiency of the Supreme Being.
Of course, we do believe that the Greek anarthrous expression “son of man” does in a general way refer to an offspring of a human being. Nevertheless, there is scriptural proof that in the Greek the definite expression “son of the man” is a Messianic title that refers to a certain offspring of a certain man, that is, it refers to the long waited for Messiah, who was to a son of a man in a special way, that is, the son of the man, David. In the Messianic sense as related to the promises, “son of man”, “Son of God”, as well as “Son of David”, are expressions that are used almost interchangeably.
Once Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say that the Son of [the ] Man is?” (Matthew 16:13, New American Standard — NAS) Notice how the title is used. It is not used as though it were speaking of any son of any man, but it is used as though it was being understood as referring to a specific son of a certain man. Thus, we can see that this title was indeed being used by the Jews in a specific way, that is, as referring to promises related to one who was to come as the son of a specific man, that is, the Son of David.
The disciples responded: “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:14, NAS) From this we can see that the Jews did have a specific application of the term “the Son of Man” in mind, that is, the promised Messiah. They were not expecting the Messiah to be the Supreme Being and also a human being.
Jesus then asked them: “But who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15) Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) From his answer, we determine that the expression “Son of the Man” was being considered as related to the promises concerning the Messiah and “Son of the Living God.” In other words, “the Son of the Man” is made equal to “Son of the Living God”. It was evidently an expression being used by the Jews in general as denoting the promised one, the promised Messiah, the Son of David.
John 5:27
Another objection is that Wilson stated: “The phrase [Son of the Man] as used by Jesus is always in the emphatic form, though our English versions do not show it.” Yet John 5:27 are the words of Jesus, but in this place, the expression is anarthrous, and could be rendered “son of a man”. Doesn’t this show that Jesus was being given the judgment because, not only was he the Supreme Being, but he was also a son of a man, that is, human?
John 5:27 states: “He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.” (World English Bible translation) We answer that yes, Wilson evidently did overlook that this instance Jesus did not use the definite article. Jesus several times refers to himself as “Son” and to the only true Supreme Being (John 17:1,3) as his Father in the context of John 5:27. Nothing in the context shows that Jesus is being referred to as Supreme Being. Nevertheless, our trinitarian neighbors wish to read into the two expressions that somehow this makes Jesus a hypostatic union — both the Supreme Being and human being. In reality, there is no need to read such into what Jesus said. The statement is that God, the only true Supreme Being, the God and Father of Jesus, gave to the Son the authority to execute judgment “because” he is a son of man. We are left wondering why there would be any merit of Jesus’ simply being the son of any man that would be the “cause” that he would receive authority to execute judgment. The point seems to be that as pointed out in Hebrews 2:17; 5:8, he was made like his brothers, and, his sufferings while his full obedience qualified him to be given the authority to judge. Nevertheless, this was not simply “because” Jesus was the son of any man, such as Joseph, his “foster” father, for if he had been, he would have been a sinner just as Joseph; rather Jesus was counted as the promised Son of David, to whom the promises belong, having been given a special body untainted by the sin of Adam. (Romans 5:12-19; Hebrews 10:5) Thus, we have no reason to believe that Jesus intended the expression “Son of Man” in John 5:27 to mean that he was simply of a son of any man, for such a generalization would additionally make him a sinner as all men. It is to the Son of David the promises are made concerning authority and judgment. — Psalm 2:6-9; 132:11; Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:1; Jeremiah 22:30; 23:5; Matthew 9:6; 12:8; 25:31; Matthew 26:64; 28:18; Mark 2:10,28; 13:26; 14:52; Luke 1:32; 5:24; 6:5; 21:27; 22:69; John 5:27; 3:13; Acts 13:34; Ephesians 1:15-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2.
Son of Adam?
Some say that the expression “Son of Man” simply means that Jesus was the Son of Adam, basing this on the idea that the Hebrew word for “Adam” means “man”, as used in Daniel 8:17. Others claim that Jesus spoke in Hebrew and used the exact term as recorded in Daniel 8:17. While we might consider that Jesus was indeed counted, or reckoned, as a son of Adam, due to the lineage of his foster father, and his mother, from the usage of the phrase in the New Testament, we highly doubt that this is what Jesus had in mind by the expression, “Son of the Man”, as he applied this to himself. There are some who go off into even greater extremes and claim that this title means that Jesus was actually a reincarnation of Adam. How this phrase should show that Jesus is a reincarnation of Adam is vaguely argued, to say the least, for how can stating that one is the son of a person mean that the son is the one of whom he is the son? At any rate, we believe it best to simply stay by the scriptures, rather than add all this extra-Biblical philosophy to the scriptures.
Nevertheless, we need to bear out that if Jesus had been the son of Adam in the sense that all mankind is, this would have made him also a sinner like all of us. Jesus actually had no father on earth, and thus was not contaminated with Adamic sin that pervades mankind. (Romans 5:12-19) Adam lost the dominion for man because of his sin, so that now we do not yet see all things in subjection to man. (Hebrews 2:8) Jesus did come as a human, a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory, and provided the redemption price to restore this glory and dominion to man (not to angels). — Hebrews 2:9.
Although Jesus was not actually under the condemnation through Adam (in him was life — John 1:4), he did willingly submit to undergoing the penalty of the condemnation in order to take the condemnation off Adam and the race in Adam’s loins. (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9) It is in this manner that he who knew no sin was sin for us. — 1 Corinthians 5:21.
Thus the term, the Son of the Man, is not being used to represent one in condemnation, which would be the case had Jesus actually been born simply as a “son of Adam” just as the rest of the human race, for the human race are children of Adam, and through Adam are sinful flesh, dying (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:12-19 – See New American Standard), since through Adam the many — the whole human race descended from Adam — are made sinners. Had Jesus been of such sinful stock, he could not have had life (John 1:4), nor could he have died for our sins. As the son of the man, having received a specially prepared body from God (Hebrews 10:5), Jesus in the days of his flesh was indeed, the Son of God, as was Adam before Adam sinned, the sinless Adam being a type of the Messiah. (Luke 3:38; Romans 5:14) Nevertheless, the title, the Son of the Man, refers more especially to the inheritance of the higher dominion that is to restore man’s glory and dominion over the animal kingdom. — Daniel 2:35,44; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 16:13,27; 20:30,31; 21:29,15; 22:42; Mark 10:47,48; 12:35; Luke 1:32; 18:38,39; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 20:1-5.
Jesus was counted, or reckoned, as the seed of David because of his parents, having been born of woman under the Law, even though Jesus’ actual father was God in heaven. Jesus was therefore that antitype of Adam, who, before he sinned, had God as his Father, (Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12) Jesus’ human soul, including his body and his blood, was not tainted by the sin of Adam, as are the rest of mankind. How did Jesus’ body come down from heaven? Does this mean that Jesus was a human with a body of flesh before coming into the world? We know that Jesus’ body was formed in the womb of Mary, but the conception of the flesh was from the God of Jesus by means of the holy spirit. (Matthew 1:20) This does not mean that the flesh that was conceived — begotten — was God Almighty, but rather, the scripture says that Jesus’ body was prepared for him by his God (Hebrews 10:5), for the purpose of its being an offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:10; John 6:51) Jesus spoke of his body, his flesh, in John 6:32 as symbolically the “bread of life” that was from the only true God, his Father, who sent Jesus. “My Father gives you the true bread out of heaven.” (John 17:1,3) Thus, while his body was formed in the womb of Mary, the God of Jesus was the one who prepared his body. His body was not tainted by the sinful flesh of mankind. (Romans 8:3) Jesus was without sin, he never fell short of the glory of God, as those who are dying “in Adam”. (Romans 3:23; 1 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5) He was not ‘by nature a child of wrath’ as mankind in general, due to the sin of Adam. (Ephesians 2:3) Having no sin, the was the “bread of life”. In him was life, a sinless life, equal ot that of Adam’s before Adam sinned, which he could offer in sacrifice for the world of mankind dying in Adam — the just for the unjust. (John 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18) He could offer his flesh — his humanity — as a sacrifice for sin, and thus by our symbolically eating and partaking of his flesh, through faith in him, we can have life.
Matthew 16:13-16
Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
Matthew 16:14 They said, “Some say John the Baptizer, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”
Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
The thought is presented that these scriptures present Jesus’ alleged dual natures above, one “nature” being that of a human being, “the Son of Man”, and another nature being that of the God being, represented in the expression “the Son of the living God.” What is being imagined is that “Son of Man” means his humanity, while “Son of God” means that he is the Most High.
Actually, there is nothing at all in the verses given that give us any reason to think Jesus possesses two levels of sentiency at once, one alleged to be that of the only Most High, while the other would be that of a human being, confined to a body of flesh.
The expression “Son of Man”, as already shown, should actually be “the son of the man”; the expression represents Jesus as the promised son of the man, David, who was to be the one Anointed by the only true God.
Peter stated to Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” “The Christ” — the Anointed One — obviously refers to an event that is performed by “the [unipersonal] living God”, and Peter’s later statement agrees with this:
Acts 2:36 — “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Was Jesus “made … Christ” in his humanity, or was he made Christ in his alleged being like the Most High? The trinitarian, if he agrees that it was in his humanity that Jesus was “made Christ”, logically, would have to further create assumptions so as to separate Peter’s expression “You are the Christ” from “the Son of the Living God” as to apply “You are the Christ” to his humanity and then apply “the Son of the Living God” to his alleged Supreme God being. If one claims that it was the alleged Supreme Being Jesus who was anointed, then one has to create many assumptions beyond what is written and add these assumptions to the scriptures in order to have the scriptures appear to say that it was one person of the Supreme Being who anointed another person of the Supreme Being as “the Christ”.
Actually, Peter does not say that Jesus is “God”, but rather that Jesus is “the Son of the Living God”. The word “God” here refers to only person, and “the Son” is excluded from being “the Living God” who is referred to. Jesus is not “the Living God” of whom he is the Son.
Daniel 7:13,14
Some claim that in Daniel 7:13,14, the anarthrous “son of a man” is applied to Jesus’ return in the “clouds”. We have given attention to this in our study “Ancient of Days“, which please see. Suffice it to say that the most scriptural conclusion is that ‘son of a man’ in Daniel 7:13 simply refers symbolically of Jesus’ being the likeness of a son of a man, having obtained from his past human experience characteristics of man which enables him to sympathize with humans, not that he actually would be a son of a man. We know that Jesus gave his human existence in sacrifice for our sins (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18); Jesus is no longer a son of a man, for he is, then he would still be a little lower than the angels, rather than exalted high above the angels. — Psalm 8:4,5; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Philippians 2:9; Hebrews 1:6; 2:6,7,9; 1 Peter 3:22.
The idea that Jesus has two “natures”, or levels of being, at once, has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what is stated in Daniel 7:13 as well as any other scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment