On a few occasions, Jesus referred to Himself as the "Son of God", but, as it turns out, His most common appellation was "Son of Man". In fact, the term appears all over Scripture. Interesting, eh? The reference is a callback to Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 7 where "one like a son of man" appeared in a vision and "was given authority, glory, and sovereign power." It is a Messianic title that every Jew would have understood. Coming, however, from the Son of God, you have to see that it is very important. Being God Incarnate, the phrase takes on new signficance. He is God and He is Man.
It's interesting to trace the two lineages of Jesus in the New Testament. Matthew's starts with Abraham and goes through David to Jesus. Luke's goes (in reverse) from Adam through David to Jesus. These two give the point. He is the Jewish Messiah (from Abraham, the father of the Jews) and He is human (from Adam, the father of humanity).
The Trinitarian formula is that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% Man. "Oh," we're tempted to conclude, "He was a 200% being." No, not the idea. It means that all that God is Jesus is and all that defines Man was part of Jesus. God and Man. Both are true. Both are vital. So ... why did Jesus refer to Himself as "Son of Man" more often than "Son of God"?
I think it was because the "Son of Man" aspect was so critical. You see, we're humans. Humans relating to God isn't an easy concept. He is so ... other. In fact, that's the basic definition of "holy"--"other". God is so very "other" that it is the only attribute repeated in a thrice-format ... twice (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). It's like our bold print and italics or underline and exclamation marks. It's like "holy, holier, holiest!!!" He is other. So "Son of Man" becomes critical. While God the Father rebuked the wicked with "You thought that I was just like you" (Psa 50:21), Jesus was saying, "I'm a man like you." He was saying, "I can relate." The author of Hebrews says, "For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted." (Heb 2:18). Imagine that! God Incarnate experiencing temptation ... just like you.
The task for which Jesus came was a complicated one. He came to save the lost. Not just one or two. Many. The only method whereby that could be accomplished would be to pay for the sins of the world. So, in order to do that, the payment would have to be a human. But we have a problem. Humans are required to be perfect, which Christ was, so in order to pay for another's sins, He would have to be perfect twice. In order to pay for the sins of the many, He would have to be many. And only the infinite God is that.
In Genesis 22 we have the story of Abraham offering Isaac. Isaac realizes halfway up the mountain that they were missing the sacrifice. He asked his dad about it. Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." (Gen 22:8). Now, when God did stop Abraham, it wasn't a lamb that was provided; it was a ram. Because Abraham was not wrong. When God provided for Himself the Lamb for the offering, it was His own Son who had to be both God and Man, the perfect union of Deity and humanity. Only in this sacrifice is God able to be both "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:24-26).
Jesus as Son of God is marvelous. Jesus as Son of Man is exceptional. He can relate. He knows us. He has walked in our shoes. He knows the joys and pains, the temptations and victories, the everyday life that humans have. That is the Second Adam. That is our Son of Man.
2 comments:
I've often puzzled over that whole, "He was tempted as we are tempted" bit. He is God, thus, He is omniscient. He would know what it is like to be tempted, without actually being tempted. He would know what pain and suffering feel like without actually feeling pain or suffering. He is omniscient. So, if He already knows, why did He need to "experience" being human? My thought is that it was for our benefit. Omniscience is something we can't fully comprehend or accept because we aren't omniscient. Just like we can't portray a completely emotionless character because we can't be completely emotionless. I think, in order for us to truly believe that He understands our struggles, He sent us the Son so that we would believe what He already knew. We can empathize, but we don't feel the brunt of it, unless we've experienced it ourselves. And since we are so creature-centric, God must be that way too, and He may be able to empathize with our struggle, but He's never "been there", but now, with Jesus, He has. Except...He's omniscient. He's "been there" before we were even created. He knows fully and personally the struggle we live, without experiencing the struggle we live. But now we can look to Christ, and say, "Yeah, He knows. He's been there."
"Need to"? Probably not. Did so for our sakes, I'd say. For our benefit as you said.
There is a clear difference between "know" in terms of data and "know" in terms of experience. He knew it, but He experienced it, too.
I think I need to be cautious, though, because biblical "temptation" isn't just "tempted to evil". It also includes "tried". So He endured the same temptations for evil and the same trials in life.
Post a Comment