Comparison of "Son of Man" and "Son of God" in Christology
The titles "Son of Man" and "Son of God" are central to Christology, yet they convey distinct aspects of Jesus Christ's identity. "Son of Man" emphasizes Christ's humanity, while "Son of God" highlights his divinity [1, 2].
The phrase "Son of Man" is used 43 times in the New Testament as a distinctive title for Jesus, underscoring his true humanity. It is rooted in Old Testament references, particularly in Daniel 7:13, where "one like a son of man" is described as coming to the Ancient of Days [2]. This title is not merely a reference to Jesus' human nature but also encompasses his role as the representative of humanity and his messianic mission.
In contrast, "Son of God" is used 37 times in the New Testament to refer to Jesus, emphasizing his divine nature and unique relationship with God the Father. The title signifies that Jesus is not just a human being but is also of divine origin, sharing the same essence as God [1].
The early Church Fathers grappled with understanding the relationship between these two titles. Some, like Hippolytus, argued against the notion that there is no distinction between the Son of God and the Son of Man, emphasizing that Jesus Christ is both man and God [5]. Tertullian further clarified that Jesus is "expressly set forth as both God and Man," with the psalmist intimating that "God became Man" [6]. Augustine also affirmed that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, is both God and man, being God before all worlds and man in our world [7].
The distinction between the two titles is not merely semantic; it reflects the complex nature of Christ's person. As Calvin noted, Christ is called the Son of God "in respect of his Godhead," and this title is not limited to his role as Mediator but extends to his divine nature [4]. The unity of Christ's person, comprising both divine and human natures, is a mystery that has been the subject of theological reflection throughout history.
The Reformed tradition, as represented by Calvin and Gill, emphasizes that the titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" refer to the same person, Jesus Christ, but highlight different aspects of his nature. Calvin argued that Christ's being called the Son of God and the Son of Man does not imply a mixture of natures but rather reflects the unity of his person [9]. Gill, commenting on John 10:30, explained that Jesus' statement "I and my Father are one" refers to the unity of nature and essence between Jesus and the Father, underscoring Jesus' divinity [8].
In the Catholic tradition, Aquinas discussed the notional acts in the Trinity, including the begetting of the Son, emphasizing that the Son was begotten from the Father's substance, not from nothing [10]. This understanding underscores the divine nature of Jesus as the Son of God.
The biblical genealogy in Luke 3:38 traces Jesus' lineage back to Adam, who is called "the son of God," highlighting Jesus' connection to humanity and his divine origin [3]. This genealogy serves as a backdrop for understanding the significance of both titles.
The early Christian understanding of Jesus as both the Son of Man and the Son of God is rooted in the biblical text and has been developed through the theological reflections of the Church Fathers and subsequent Christian traditions. The distinction between these titles remains a cornerstone of Christology, affirming the complex and multifaceted nature of Jesus Christ's identity.
The theological articulation of Jesus' dual nature as expressed through the titles "Son of Man" and "Son of God" continues to be a subject of reflection in Christian theology, with various traditions offering their interpretations. The affirmation of Jesus as both fully human and fully divine remains a central tenet of Christian doctrine, as echoed in the creeds and confessions of the Christian faith [7, 11].
Sources
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Son of God — The plural, "sons of God," is used (Gen. 6:2, 4) to denote the pious descendants of Seth. In Job 1:6; 38:7 this name is applied to the angels. Hosea uses the phrase (1:10) to designate the gracious relation in which men stand to God. In the New Testament this phrase frequently denotes the relation into which we are brought to God by adoption (Rom. 8:14, 19; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 4:5, 6; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2). It occurs thirty-seven times in the New Testament as the distinctive title of our Saviour. He does not bear this title in consequence of his mirac”
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Son of man — (1.) Denotes mankind generally, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (Job 25:6; Ps. 8:4; 144:3; 146:3; Isa. 51:12, etc.). (2.) It is a title frequently given to the prophet Ezekiel, probably to remind him of his human weakness. (3.) In the New Testament it is used forty-three times as a distinctive title of the Saviour. In the Old Testament it is used only in Ps. 80:17 and Dan. 7:13 with this application. It denotes the true humanity of our Lord. He had a true body (Heb. 2:14; Luke 24:39) and a rational soul. He was perfect man.”
- Luke “the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. -- Luke 3:38”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 50: and only-begotten Son he bestows on Christ alone. But how is he an only Son in so great a multitude of brethren, except that he possesses by nature what we acquire by gift? This honour we extend to his whole character of Mediator, so that He who was born of a Virgin, and on the cross offered himself in sacrifice to the Father, is truly and properly the Son of God; but 421 still in respect of his Godhead: as Paul teaches when he says, that he was “separated unto the gospel of God (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the H”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 5: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian — CHAP. XXIV.(4) ARGUMENT.--THAT THESE HAVE THEREFORE ERRED, BY THINKING THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SON OF GOD AND THE SON OF MAN; BECAUSE THEY HAVE ILL UNDERSTOOD THE SCRIPTURE. (part 1): But the material of that heretical error has arisen. as I judge, from this, that they think that there is no distinction between the Son of God and the Son of man; because if a distinction were made, Jesus Christ would easily be proved to be both man and God. For they will have it that the self-same that is man, the Son of man, appears also as the”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 3: Tertullian — CHAP. XXVII.--THE DISTINCTION OF THE FATHER AND THE SON, THUS ESTABLISHED, HE NOW PROVES THE DISTINCTION OF THE TWO NATURES, WHICH WERE, WITHOUT CONFUSION, UNITED IN THE PERSON OF THE SON. THE SUBTERF (part 3): rather some third substance, very different from either. But the truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man; the very psalm which we have quoted intimating (of the flesh), that "God became Man in the midst of it, He therefore established it by the will of the Father,"--certainly in all respects as the Son of God and the Son of Man, being”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 3: Augustine — On the Holy Trinity — CHAP. 35.--JESUS CHRIST, BEING THE ONLY SON OF GOD, IS AT THE SAME TIME MAN.: Wherefore Christ Jesus, the Son of God, is both God and man; God before all worlds; man in our world: God, because the Word of God (for "the Word was God"(6)); and man, because in His one person the Word was joined with a body and a rational soul. Wherefore, so far as He is God, He and the Father are one; so far as He is man, the Father is greater than He. For when He was the only Son of God, not by grace, but by nature, that He might be also full of grace, He became the”
- John (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on John 10:30: I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father", "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as ”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 50: from the womb—viz. to be the Son of God. Still, in the unity of person we are not to imagine any intermixture which takes away from the Godhead what is peculiar to it. Nor is it more absurd that the eternal Word of God and Christ, uniting the two natures in one person, should in different ways be called the Son of God, than that he should in various respects be called at one time the Son of God, at another the Son of Man. Nor are we more embarrassed by another cavil of Servetus—viz. that Christ, before he appeared in the flesh, is ”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part (Prima Pars), Of the Persons in Reference to the Notional Acts, Art. 3: Article: Whether the notional acts proceed from something? I answer that, The Son was not begotten from nothing, but from the Father's substance. For it was explained above (Question [27], Article [2]; Question [33], Articles [2],3) that paternity, filiation and nativity really and truly exist in God. Now, this is the difference between true "generation," whereby one proceeds from another as a son, and "making," that the maker makes something out of external matter, as a carpenter make”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 5: Augustine — Anti-Pelagian — CHAP. 60 [XXXI.]--CHRIST, THE HEAD AND THE BODY; OWING TO THE UNION OF THE NATURES IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST, HE BOTH REMAINED IN HEAVEN, AND WALKED ABOUT ON EARTH; HOW THE ONE CHRIST COULD ASCEND TO HE (part 2): Christs,--the one God, the other man,[4]--but one and the same God and man,--God, because "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;"[5] and man, inasmuch as "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."[6] By this means--by the difference between His divinity and His humiliation--He remained in heaven as Son”