Son of God or God the Son?
Jesus asked a question of His disciples concerning His identity - "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" (Matthew 16:13). The disciples responded with various answers drawn from the populace and then Jesus asked, "But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15). Peter declared, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16), which Jesus affirmed as a revelation from His Father in Heaven. Obviously, Jesus' identity was important and thus the interaction with His disciples, but what exactly did Peter's statement communicate?
Was this a statement of Jesus' deity or was it merely a statement of His mission as God's anointed one, come to provide salvation for Israel as their Messiah and also the world? Was the declaration of Sonship indicative of deity or just a reference to His humanity as God's Son? You will no doubt guess that I believe the confession by Peter is not merely affirming Jesus' mission or humanity, as I am using capitals to refer to Jesus and thus giving Him a higher status.
Certainly His identity as Messiah, the Christ, includes His mission, but it is far more than that. The Old Testament gives insights as to the nature of this promised Messiah. Isaiah states that He would have the name that includes "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" (9:6), which are clearly indicative of deity. Daniel sees the "Ancient of Days" and "a son of man" in his vision of the future kingdom reign on earth, which suggests divinity for the messianic reference of "son of man" (Daniel 7). Micah adds to this in his reference to the Messiah as "whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" (5:2). Isaiah also gives this future virgin conceived son the name "Immanuel", which means God with us.
The New Testament provides the clearest communication of Jesus' identity as God incarnate. It begins with the birth narrative in which Jesus is given the name "Immanuel" (Matthew 1:22-23), as promised in the prophecy of Isaiah. John introduces Jesus as the Word, Who is God (1:1) and then is manifested in flesh, that is a human being (1:14). He states that no one has seen God at any time, which is problematic if God is only one person as God was seen personally in the Old Testament by Abraham, Jacob and others. The resolution is that Jesus is God, revealing God in the Old Testament as the second person in the Godhead, and in the New Testament as the God-man. Strong manuscript support exists for the rendering of John 1:18 as "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known" (ESV).
The gospels continue this affirmation of Jesus' deity in His role as creator (John 1:3) and having the prerogatives of deity in forgiving sin (Matthew 9:2; Mark 2:7; Luke 7:47-48); raising the dead (John 6:39-40; 11:25-26); and executing judgement (Matthew 25:31-32). Jesus claims He is one with the Father (John 10:30) and both act in unison (John 14:23). These actions and claims provoked the charge of blasphemy from the Jewish religious leaders, who clearly understood Jesus presenting Himself as divine, which Jesus did not correct as it was the truth.
John also records Jesus should receive the same honour as the Father (5:23) and did receive worship from Thomas (John 20:28), which was reserved for God (Exodus 34:14; Matthew 4:10) and refused by men and angels (Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9). He adds that whatever the Father has belongs to Jesus (16:15; 17:10) and to see Jesus is to see the Father (14:8-9). The accumulated descriptions in John's gospel make it clear that the terms, "the Christ, the Son of God" (20:31), are not expressions of mere humanity, but declarations of divinity.
In my next blog, I will explore further the New Testament teaching on Jesus' identity as God. Till next time - God bless!
❝Certainly His identity as Messiah, the Christ, includes His mission, but it is far more than that. The Old Testament gives insights as to the nature of this promised Messiah. Isaiah states that He would have the name that includes "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" (9:6), which are clearly indicative of deity.❞
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at how the term El Gibbor is used in other verses we can see that it can take on another meaning that isn’t indicative of deity.
Let’s look first at “gibbor”. The word can function as a noun or an adjective. As an adjective it means mighty, such as in Gen. 10:9; Prov. 30:30 & 1 Sam. 14:52. As a noun it means a mighty one and can be translated as warrior, champion, or valiant man, as in Gen. 6:4; Judges 6:12; 1 Sam. 17:51 & 2 Sam. 23:8.
The word “el” is translated as God when referring to Yahweh but is also used of men and so is translated as ‘mighty one’, as in the following verses: Ezekiel 31:11 we have King Nebuchadnezzar called “El” and this is translated as “Mighty One”. We also have Ezekiel 17:13 (where Nebuchadnezzar is said to have carried away the ele of the land; see also 2 Kings 24:15); Exodus 15:15 (where the ele of Moab is parallel to the chiefs of Edom). El seems to take on an adjectival sense in Psalm 36:6 and 80:10 where it is rendered mighty in reference to mountains and cedars.
Now the combination of el and gibbor, as in Isaiah 9:6, appears again only in Is. 10:21 and Ezek. 32:21. The Ezekiel passage is translated various ways:
ASV & KJV — ” … the strong among the mighty … “
ESV — ” … the mighty chiefs … “
HCSB — “Warrior leaders“
NIV & ISV — “… mighty leaders … “
NET — “The bravest of the warriors … “
This term then, “El Gibbor”, is used in plural form to refer to human leaders in that verse. So when Isaiah 9:6 is taken in context based on the other uses of this term, that a child was to be born and have the government rest on his shoulders, it makes sense to call this individual a “mighty one” or “mighty leader”. This is a fitting title for a human with God given authority, it portrays the king as God's representative on the battlefield.
Even if we suppose that the correct translation is calling this individual “God” this still doesn’t prove that he is deity. We have sufficient evidence within the biblical data to argue the fact that men and angels are called “elohim”. Human judges and angels are called Elohim because they are representatives of God. Moses, the judges of Israel, and the King of Israel are all called “elohim” because they are acting on God’s behalf as His representative, whilst still only being men.
When speaking of the phrase “Eternal Father”, “Father of the Age”, “Everlasting Father”, “Father forever”, “Father of eternity”, “Father who lives forever”, and “the Father of the age to come”. All of these come from different translations. The phrase communicates the idea that this individual would be the Father of the coming age. Father then is being used in a figurative sense since the Messiah would be the patriarch of the Messianic era, the firstfruits of the age to come.
❝Daniel sees the "Ancient of Days" and "a son of man" in his vision of the future kingdom reign on earth, which suggests divinity for the messianic reference of "son of man" (Daniel 7).❞
ReplyDeleteNot quite sure how you reason from son of man to divinity. The verse in that chapter literally states that someone who is not the Ancient of Days approaches the Ancient of Days.
Daniel 7:13 - “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
It’s important to note that the Ancient of Days is referred to as “His” (verses 9, 10, 13). This son of man is taken into His presence. The Ancient of Days then is a singular person.
The scriptures unfold for us the Messianic King approaching the Ancient of Days to receive authority, glory, and power (Dan 7:14). Receiving these things demonstrates that this son of man is not God but someone other than God because He receives these things from God.
❝Micah adds to this in his reference to the Messiah as "whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" (5:2).❞
The reference in Micah 5:2 is to remote antiquity and has nothing to do with being deity. This phrase is also shown in Deut 32:7 for the meaning of “days of old”. In the same book a similar expression dates the promises made to Jacob from “days of old” (Micah 7:20). The point then is to show that the origins of the Messiah go back a long time, He was descended from King David, who was from Abraham who descended from Eve who was promised to have a descendant who would crush the serpent's head (Genesis 3.15).
❝Isaiah also gives this future virgin conceived son the name "Immanuel", which means God with us.❞
The Bible is full of names like this. God is incorporated in many men's names as well as his attributes. This doesn't make any of these people God. The NT paints a well enough picture for us to see that God was in the Messiah reconciling the world to Himself. One does not need to apply ontological concepts to the text based upon the meaning of the name Immanuel. Jesus stated that His Father was in Him doing His works. Paul states that God dwelt in the Son. God was with His people and they missed it.
❝The New Testament provides the clearest communication of Jesus' identity as God incarnate. It begins with the birth narrative in which Jesus is given the name "Immanuel" (Matthew 1:22-23), as promised in the prophecy of Isaiah. John introduces Jesus as the Word, Who is God (1:1) and then is manifested in flesh, that is a human being (1:14).❞
ReplyDeletePlease refer to the Immanuel comment above. Regarding the prologue of John, much can be said. I see no reason to take the ontological route with the phrase, “the Word was God”. The OT lays a functional God framework for us to use as the interpretive lens. Moses is called God, the judges of Israel are called God, and even the King of Israel is called God. Men are called God in the OT and this doesn’t carry with it any underlying ontological ideas with it. So with this framework already laid by the OT why then take the ontological route in the NT when the Messiah is called God? In light of this framework and the 20,000+ singular personal pronouns used of God there is simply no need to compound persons into the Being of God.
The point then of John’s prologue is to show that Jesus and not John the Baptiser is the Messiah. The Messiah had a special pros ton theon relationship with God just as Moses did. And just as Moses was God to Pharaoh, Jesus was also functionally God too. Through Messiah God spoke His words and performed His works. Through Messiah all came to be through Him, all referring to the regeneration / new creation. In Messiah is life and light. The Messiah was in the world (a reference to the social order) and through Him the world came to be (that is a new social order of being a child of God). The Messiah came to His own people, the Jews, and they didn’t receive Him. Then John explains in verse 14 that the Messiah was flesh. A similar statement from the Epistle of John 1. The term “egeneto” in verse 14 has a wide range of meaning and is used often, for example:
Luke 24:4 - it came to pass
Luke 24:5 - were
Luke 24:19 - was
John 1:3 - made
John 1:6 - there was
John 1:10 - was made
John 6:16 - was [now] come
John 6:21 - was
John 10:35 - came
The point then that John is making, in my opinion, is that the Word was flesh, a human. This was to counteract the error of the day that Jesus only appeared as a human but was actually a spirit. John makes it clear to the audience what Jesus, the Word, was flesh.
❝He states that no one has seen God at any time, which is problematic if God is only one person as God was seen personally in the Old Testament by Abraham, Jacob and others. The resolution is that Jesus is God, revealing God in the Old Testament as the second person in the Godhead, and in the New Testament as the God-man. Strong manuscript support exists for the rendering of John 1:18 as "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known" (ESV).❞
ReplyDeleteThere are two main manuscript traditions for this passage. Your Bible may show this in a footnote to this verse. The ancient manuscripts we do have in our possession are not in agreement. Some manuscripts read "God" while other manuscripts read "Son." Most early church writings quote "Son" while some writers quote "God," especially after the Council of Nicea. Hence, at least one of these readings is a corruption and did not originally come from the hand of the Apostle John. It is very difficult to tell which rendering is authentic based purely upon the manuscript evidence alone. The very earliest manuscript we have reads "monogenes God." However, it is a well known fact among textual critics that earliest does not necessarily mean best.
There are plenty of articles on this, which I’m sure you have read and lean towards the “God” translation but I think common sense needs to play a role here. In context, John says that no one has ever seen God. We know our God is the invisible God. While the Bible does make shocking statements from time to time, let us appeal to our common sense. What do you think John intended to say? Did he intend to say the only begotten God in the bosom of God declared/revealed the unbegotten God the Father? Did he intend to say the unique God in the bosom of the unique God declared/revealed the unique God? Or do you think he intended to say the Son reveals his Father who is God? Let us be reasonable and honest with ourselves. The entire Gospel of John is about the Father being manifested through His Son, named Jesus. In other words, the Father was revealed through a human being. This shows that the "only begotten God" reading is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, the "only begotten God" reading doesn't really make any sense if you think about it. What is the point of God the Son revealing God the Father? If there are 3 hypostases who are God, what is the point of the 2nd making the 1st known to us? They’re both God, supposedly one and the same God. When you consider these things, it should be apparent that the Trinitarian version of this verse really doesn't make any sense. What is the point of one hypostasis making known another hypostasis when the 1st hypostasis is in fact the same as the 2nd hypostasis ontologically and was not previously known yet the 2nd makes the 1st known. It’s nonsense when you think about it. The point of John is to show how Jesus made the only true God known to people. This Gospel isn't about one hypostasis making another hypostasis known but about a man, God’s Son, making God known.
❝The gospels continue this affirmation of Jesus' deity in His role as creator (John 1:3)❞
ReplyDeleteThe “all things” needs to be understood the way John used it. I see no reason to make this verse about the Genesis creation but rather about the new creation that is being brought about through and by the man Jesus. Looking at the translation itself it needs to be mentioned that the word “things” in the phrase “all things” is not there in the Greek, it’s just the word “All”. But the adjective is functioning as a noun, meaning all something. The reader has to decide what the something of the all is. All what? All the universe? All things? All people? All events? All powers? There are many options. We use the word all in English sometimes in a similar fashion. “Now I’ve seen it all” doesn’t mean I’ve seen every tree, animal and galaxy. We need context to interpret the word “all”. The same word “all” is used three more times in the Prologue, in each case it refers to all people:
1:7 - “This one came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all (masc. plural) might believe through him”
1:9 - “The true light that gives light to all human beings” (in this case the noun “men, human beings” is supplied).
1:16 - “from his fullness we have all received”
The main use of all in the Gospel of John is “all” kinds of people, sometimes those who believe, sometimes those who don’t believe. Sometimes those who hear, sometimes those who see. Sometimes “all” in John means all authority or power (13:3, the Father had given all into his hands), or truths (14:26, 15:15). But here is the point: of the 65 (or so) occurrences of the word “all” in the Gospel of John (sometimes with a noun supplied), I don’t see one other occurrence where it means all the physical, created universe. The famous John 3:16 is a good example of the use of all meaning people.
John 3:16 - “that all who believe in him, should not perish”;
John 3:26 - “all are coming to him”
John 3:35 - the Father loves the Son, and has given all (things, people, powers) into his hand.”
John 5:20 - the Father shows him all things that He does…
John 6:37 - all that the Father gives me will come to me;
So, rather than take the “all things” of John 1:3 to be a reference to everything in the created universe, a way in which the word is never used anywhere else in the Gospel of John or for that matter rarely if ever in all of the New Testament, the word all is better understood in John 1:3 as all the events, people, and power brought about by the Messiah.
❝and having the prerogatives of deity in forgiving sin (Matthew 9:2; Mark 2:7; Luke 7:47-48); raising the dead (John 6:39-40; 11:25-26); and executing judgement (Matthew 25:31-32).❞
As the Messiah these prerogatives were granted to Him to function as God on His behalf. Having been granted these rights He was functionally God’s equal. But with such power and authority at His disposal his Father was still greater than Him (John 14:28)
❝Jesus claims He is one with the Father (John 10:30)❞
ReplyDeleteThe context of this has the Father and Son protecting the sheep together so that no one can snatch them out of their hands. The “oneness” that they have is not a claim of ontology but of purpose. The Father and Son are one in purpose, in keeping the sheep safe. This idea is also used by Paul.
1 Cor 3:8 - and he who is planting and he who is watering are one, and each his own reward shall receive, according to his own labour,
❝and both act in unison (John 14:23). These actions and claims provoked the charge of blasphemy from the Jewish religious leaders, who clearly understood Jesus presenting Himself as divine, which Jesus did not correct as it was the truth.❞
The Father / Son relationship is not one of ontology but of functionality. The Father grants to the Son divine prerogatives. The Son then functions as God just as Moses, the judges of Israel, and the King of Israel did. As the Messiah these prerogatives caused the people to think that He claimed to be God but Jesus goes on to correct their misunderstanding.
John 10 34-36 - Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
He corrects their claim and states that He only claimed to be the Son of God, which is a Messianic claim. Claiming to be the Messiah is a claim to be the Anointed One. Claiming to be the Anointed One is a claim that carries with it the underlying assumption that the one who is anointed is not God. God does not anoint Himself, God is the one who anoints. God anoints men and women to empower them to carry out His will. To claim that God anoints Himself is nonsense.
❝John also records Jesus should receive the same honour as the Father (5:23)❞
The Father has granted and entrusted the Son with judgement. This is not a prerogative that someone needs to be granted if they are inherently deity. As the Messianic Son He is granted the divine prerogative to judge and with this comes honour. The Son will execute justice and righteousness in judgement and for this act He will receive honour. This has nothing intrinsic to it in regards to being deity. God hands over the baton to the Son and the Son functions as God on His behalf.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete❝and did receive worship from Thomas (John 20:28), which was reserved for God (Exodus 34:14; Matthew 4:10) and refused by men and angels (Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9).❞
ReplyDeleteIn John 20:28 Thomas is finally seeing for the first time what he had been missing all along. But first, let's understand my hermeneutic. Let's look at Matthew 16.
Matthew 16:23 - Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
In this verse we have Jesus calling Peter Satan. Should we conclude that Jesus believes that Peter is the incarnation of Satan? Or that Peter has 2 nature's, 100% man and 100% Satan? I don't think so and neither do I believe that you would say that either. So what is going on here? Jesus has rightly identified the influence in Peter's words and actions to be Satan. Likewise then has Thomas finally seen that the influence in Jesus' life this entire time was God. Just look at John 14:
John 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe in the evidence of the works themselves.
God was right there with them and they hadn't even discerned / identified it. Thomas was there during this moment too, read that chapter for yourself. So now in John 20 with Thomas seeing the resurrected Messiah with great excitement proclaims my Lord and my God. Thomas finally sees it, that God was there the whole time working through Jesus. Thomas rightly identifies that the influence in Jesus' life was God that whole time. Paul also testifies to this fact.
2 Cor 5:19 - namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself…
With regards to the worship of the Son, the term “proskuneo” means to pay homage, prostrate before, make obeisance. This act was common in the middle east where people would bow before someone who was in authority above them or as an act of respect. For example: Genesis 23:7,12, Genesis 27:29, Genesis 33:1-4, Ruth 2:10, 1 Samuel 25:40-41, 2 Samuel 14:4, and the list goes on.
The Messiah has been given all authority and so it is fitting to bow before Him as King. With this act there is no acknowledgement of making Him God, it’s simply out of respect because He is Lord over all things. One should not confuse who they acknowledge as God in their act of worship. We can proskuneo God because He is our God and we can proskuneo the Lord Jesus because He is our Lord. One should not bow to Jesus as God when He is not. The Messiah belongs to God.
1 Cor 3:23 - and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's.
❝He adds that whatever the Father has belongs to Jesus (16:15; 17:10) and to see Jesus is to see the Father (14:8-9).❞
ReplyDeleteI see no reason to think these claims amount to deity. The Father can give whatever He wishes to the Son without the Son being deity.
To claim to see the Father in the Son is not a claim to deity. Adam was also made in God’s image and he wasn’t deity. Jesus is the image of God, He perfectly displays who God is. A God who is invisible is revealed by the Son.
❝The accumulated descriptions in John's gospel make it clear that the terms, "the Christ, the Son of God" (20:31), are not expressions of mere humanity, but declarations of divinity. In my next blog, I will explore further the New Testament teaching on Jesus' identity as God. Till next time - God bless!❞
With all of that now said let me summarise my thoughts. The Messiah was prophesied long ago through many different people. His origins are spoken of as having come from antiquity, from individuals long ago. The Messiah was foreknown by God and was destined to suffer, be slain, and be raised to glory by God where He would sit at God’s right hand and be heir of the world. He would be the One through which the new age would come, the age of life everlasting. He was to be given power, authority, and glory next to the Ancient of Days. To achieve all of this God sent His Son, the promised King to David’s throne, to the Jewish people. God was in His Son and granted the Son the prerogatives to judge, raise the dead, and have life in Himself. The Father and Son are one in purpose to bring about God’s will. The Son spoke God’s words (which He learnt from God) and performed miracles and signs, which God performed through Him. The Son then is not deity but the human Son of God invested with God’s authority to act on God’s behalf. List to the Apostle Peter:
Acts 3:12-15 - And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 👉The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus👈, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
Notice Peter’s views of God and Jesus. The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the fathers has a servant, and that servant’s name is Jesus. God’s servant is Jesus the Messiah, the anointed one. God anointed His servant Jesus.
Acts 10:34-38 - So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
Corey - I have interacted with your comments in Facebook and so will not respond extensively here, but I would say that God cannot give whatever He wants to the Son unless such things are compatible with His identity. If he is merely human then many things cannot be granted him. The divine prerogatives remain solely God's and cannot be given to anyone less than God. In as much as Jesus deserved those assigned to Him in His perfect obedience as a genuine human being, they cannot include all aspects of deity. Every reference that you quote concerning the humanity of Jesus does affirm His humanity, which is not in question. The issue is whether He is more than human, which I believe Scripture clearly teaches, and that additional existence is divine, not angelic or any other creature. I realise how difficult it is for anyone to accept that God could become human, while retaining full deity and thus exist as one person with two natures. The distinguishing of Jesus' humanity is the reason for every reference to it and so such references only serve to prove that point. Jesus lived as a dependent human being, not exercising His divine attributes, and thus did what Adam failed to do. He willingly took on this role for the purpose of providing salvation for humanity in His sacrificial death on the cross. I will have more to say about these matters in subsequent blogs.
ReplyDelete