Four Sections (Son, Son of God, Son of Man, and The Word)
We should consider the dual nature of Christ in the framework of biblical terminology. The term “Father” refers to God Himself—God in all His deity. When we speak of the eternal Spirit of God, we mean God Himself, the Father. “God the Father,” therefore, is a perfectly acceptable and biblical phrase to use for God (Titus 1:4). However, the Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature.
“Son of God” never means the incorporeal Spirit alone, however. We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. The terms “Son of God,” “Son of man,” and “Son” are appropriate and biblical. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.
The Son of God is not a distinct person in the Godhead but the physical expression of the one God. The Son is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:13-15) and “the express image of his [God’s] person” (Hebrews 1:2-3). Just as a signature stamp leaves an exact likeness on paper, or just as a seal leaves an exact impression when pressed in wax, so the Son of God is the exact expression of the Spirit of God in flesh. Humans could not see the invisible God, so God made an exact likeness of Himself in flesh, impressed His very nature in flesh, came Himself in flesh, so that humans could see and know Him.
Many other verses of Scripture reveal that we can only use the term “Son of God” correctly when it includes the humanity of Jesus. For example, the Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4), the Son was begotten (John 3:16), the Son was born (Matthew 1:21-23; Luke 1:35), the Son did not know the hour of the Second Coming (Mark 13:32), the Son could do nothing of Himself (John 5:19), the Son came eating and drinking (Matthew 11:19), the Son suffered (Matthew 17:12), a person can blaspheme against the Son but not the Spirit and be forgiven (Luke 12:10), the Son was crucified (John 3:14; 12:30-34), and the Son died (Matthew 27:40-54; Romans 5:10). The death of Jesus is a particularly good example. His divine Spirit did not die, but His human body did. We cannot say that God died, so we cannot say “God the Son” died. On the other hand, we can say that the Son of God died because “Son” refers to humanity.
As stated above, “Son” does not refer to the humanity alone but to the one person of Christ, who was simultaneously human and divine. For example, the Son has power to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6), the Son was both in heaven and on earth at the same time (John 3:13), the Son ascended up into heaven (John 6:62), and the Son is coming again in glory to rule and judge (Matthew 25:31).
One note needs to be added to our discussion of the phrase “God the Son.” In John 1:18 the KJV uses the phrase “the only begotten Son,” and the RSV says “the only Son.” However, the NIV says “God the only Son,” and TAB says “the only unique Son, the only begotten God.” These last two versions are based on variant readings in some Greek texts. We do not believe these variant readings are correct. If we could justify the use of the phrase “God the Son” at all, it would be by pointing out, as we have done, that “Son of God” encompasses not only the humanity of Jesus but also the deity as resident in the humanity. However, John 1:18 uses “Son” to refer to the humanity, for it says the Father (the deity of Jesus) is revealed through the Son. This verse of Scripture does not mean that God is revealed by God but that God is revealed in flesh through the humanity of the Son.
-
3
- Show all
