God Became Man in Jesus Christ

 The Scriptures teach that Jesus was fully God while also being fully human. Paul declared of Jesus, " For in Him all the fulness of deity dwells in bodily form' '  (Colossians 2:9). Because Jesus is both fully God and fully man He stands in a unique relationship in the Trinity to the Father and the Holy Spirit. 

At the incarnation Jesus chose voluntarily to put Himself under the Father's authority. He did that not because He had to, but because He chose to, as part .  of God s plan. Paul explained this in Philippians 2 5-8: 

 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 

 The statement that Jesus gave up His equality with God assumes that He had equality to begin with. (The Greek word here for "equality' ' comes from the root word isos, used in geometry to describe the isosceles triangle with its two equal sides.) 

The Philippians passage also teaches that Jesus «existed» in two forms: as God (v.6) and then as a bond servant (v.7), " being found in appearance as a man."  The fact that Paul mentioned that Jesus was found in appearance as a man indicates that it was the unexpected – God become man. The word grasped does not imply that Jesus was grasping after equality with God, but rather, having equality, He did not grasp or hold on to His divine prerogatives while on earth. He lived His earthly life by the power of His Father. God the Son, in submission (by rank, not by nature) to God the Father, became man, took on a second real nature, a human nature, and then voluntarily performed the ultimate act of submission:  sacrifice of Himself for the sins of the world. 

Jesus' submission does not deny His essential equality with the Father and the Holy Spirit. God s Son must be of the same nature as His Father. This is illustrated in John 5:17, 18 and is explained by biblical commentator Leon Morris: 

 ….we read that Jesus on a sabbath day cured a lame man in Jerusalem and that He came into violent conflict with the Jewish leaders as a result. Jesus'  defense was, 'My Father worketh even until now,  and l work' (John 5:17). The Jews were enraged 'because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God' (v.18) .. The imperfect tense denotes not a single, isolated happening, but a continuing practice Moreover this practice was not aimless, nor due to religious carelessness or the like. It proceeded from Jesus' idea of His relationship to the heavenly Father.  It was because He was the Son that He acted as He did on the sabbath. Therefore the Jews saw in His attitude to the sabbath not merely the breaking of one of the commandments, but blasphemy, and that of the most serious kind. 'making himself equal with God.' Small wonder that they persecuted Him in Galilee.' 

 Just as the Father was continually working (the  implication being that of sustaining the universe, etc.) 

 Jesus said that He too was working – not as a servant obeying the Father, but on a par with the Father/  As Professor E. W. Hengstenberg states. 

 The proposition that God works unceasingly, on the Sabbath not less than on the other days, was common to the Jews of Christ. The rest on the seventh day in Genesis 2:3, as is expressly remarked, refers only to the creative work, and was always so referred by the Jews. It pertained only to the first Sabbath. The later Divine operation knows no distinction of days.  That Christ called God His Father in a different sense from that in which He was so called by all Israel (Isaiah 54:7), was implied, as the Jews perceived, in the conclusion which He drew from this relation.' 

 Jesus' point is that just as the Father works, so the Son works. His choice of words was no accident.  The sabbath was meant for rest, not working, and Jesus had just healed someone on the sabbath But Jesus went on to state that both He and the Father,  His own unique Father, were working. As the Father continually sustains His creation, so too Jesus continually sustains the creation (see also Colossians 1.16). To the Jew this was blasphemy. 

The Jews understood what Jesus was saying by calling God His own Father. Jesus was not claiming,  as the Jews often did, that God was ' 'our Father' ' in a covenant sense. Rather, Jesus claimed a special,  unique, and natural relationship to the Father when He referred to God as ''my Father.'' 

C. K. Barrett comments: 

 Jesus had called God his own father... a form of speech which did not arise out of liturgical custom or the notion of Israel as God's child .. and the assumption of a uniform activity common to Jesus and to God could mean only that Jesus was equal to God. 3 

 Because Jesus took on human form in the incarnation, we can see God in the fullest sense possible in this world. In Jesus Christ, the God-man, we behold the "glory as of the only begotten" (John 1: 14).  Yet other passages say, no man can see Me (God)  and live,  "no man has seen God at any time,' '  ''whom no man has seen or can see' ' (referring to God) (Exodus 33:20; John 1: 18; 1 Timothy 6:16; l John 4:12, etc. 

No one could see the totality of God in all His power and splendor and live – that is true. Even the presence of angelic beings caused godly individuals overwhelming fear and awe, almost to the point of death (Daniel 10:5-11). 

Yet God has been "seen." When Moses asked to see God, God replied, "No man can see Me and live. But, God went on, He would place Moses in the cleft of the rock and put His hand over him. Then His ' 'glory' ' would pass by. After His glory passed

God said, "Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen' '  (Exodus 33:23). So Moses saw God, though only to a degree he could handle. There are other instances,  too, in which God has been ' 'seen." After Jacob had wrestled with a ' 'man," a physical manifestation of God, Scripture says he had ''striven with God''  (Genesis 32:28 compare Hosea 12:3-4). Jacob said,  ' 'I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved (Genesis 32:30). Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, along with seventy elders of Israel, "saw the God of Israel... and they beheld God (Exodus 24:9 11). Samson s father exclaimed, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God"  (Judges 13:22).  After a heavenly vision of God, Isaiah said, ''I saw the Lord . my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts"  (Isaiah 6:1-3, 5). 

So the picture Scripture gives is that human beings cannot see the total glory and power of God and live. 

 Yet God has been "seen'' to the degree that our earthly capacities could perceive Him

The New Testament teaches that God has been seen in time and history in the person of Jesus Christ.  Jesus said that to see Him was the same as seeing God (John 12.45; 14:5-9). Colossians 1:15 says that Christ is the "image of the invisible God. ' ' The writer of Hebrews wrote that Christ is the "radiance of His [the Father's) glory and the exact representation of His nature" (Hebrews 1:3). The Greek means "exact reproduction,' ' a stronger term than in Colossians 1:15. According to Joseph H. Thayer, it was used for the impression produced by a seal or a die stamp in wax or metal, i.e., an exact impression, a "precise reproduction in every respect. "4

The revelation of God in Christ is a foretaste of the coming full revelation of the Holy Trinity. Jesus Christ came first to beckon and entreat. He is coming again to judge and demand. As C.S. Lewis expressed it: 

 Why is God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil? Why is He not landing in force,  invading it? Is it that He is not strong enough? Well,  Christians think He is going to land in force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely. I do not suppose you and t would have thought much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were marching into Germany and then announced he was on our side. God will invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does. When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. God is going to invade,  all right; but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else – something it never entered your head to conceive – comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side.

 Jesus Christ as Son

 In the Bible, the word son is used several ways, 

generically or figuratively. In Greek, two words were

translated "son'': teknon and huios. Teknon, the Greek equivalent of our word son, came from a root word having to do with childbearing and could be translated son, daughter, or child. The other Greek word, huios, could also be used literally; but as Strong's Exhaustive Concordance indicates, was ''used very widely of immediate or figurative kinship."6 

The word Son was used of Jesus in at least four ways: Son of Mary, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God. Those four terms together describe the natural relationship of Jesus to the Father and to human kind. 

Son of Mary. According to His human nature,  Jesus had one parent, Mary. In this sense, Jesus of Nazareth was literally and physically a "son." 

Son of David. In this instance, Son (huios) of David is often looked at as figurative because Jesus was not a literal first generation descendant of David (see Matthew 22:42-45). However, it also can mean that Jesus is a descendant and heir of David. 

Son of Man. The term son of man is distinctly Jewish and is first used in the Old Testament. Two words were used for man – adam and nos – and both were used in the collective sense (i.e.,  humankind). An individual might be called ''a son of man." The prophet Ezekiel, for example, was referred to ninety times as "son of man.' ' The phrase seemed to take on messianic overtones in Daniel 7:13, 14. 

In the New Testament the term "Son of Man"  was used exclusively of Jesus, except in Hebrews 2 6-8 where it is used for humankind generally. Whereas the Old Testament used it in a general sense, Jesus used it as a figurative title, saying He was ''the Son of Man. "  Only three times is the phrase used of Jesus outside the Gospels (Acts 7:56; Revelation 1:13; 14:14).  It is used thirty-two times in Matthew fifteen times in Mark, twenty-five times in Luke, and twelve times in John; and in each case came from the lips of Jesus Himself (except John 12:34, when someone asked Him what he meant by the title). 

The frequent use of the term appears in every facet of Christ's life: His public ministry, suffering, and future glorification.7 Throughout the Gospels, Jesus continually gave fuller meaning to the title. 

Christ's use of the title seems to run along two lines of thought. First, the use of Son of Man reveals a divine figure. Christ used the phrase to demonstrate His authority to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10-Luke 5 24) and His being the Lord of the sabbath (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). The emphasis is on Christ's authority. (The clear indication is that Christ claims authority possessed only by God. This emphasis on the divine can also be seen in Christ's use of the term with regard to His future glorification.) 

Second, the use of the term Son of Man reveals a human figure. Without question Christ's use of the title is often indicative of His desire to point to His manhood as well as to His divinity. We see that in two significant ways in the Gospels: first, the title is used of Christ as He goes about what might be called His daily work (Matthew 11:19). Second, the title is used of Jesus concerning His suffering and death (Mark 8:31). The very idea of Jesus being human foreshadows the fact that He must eventually die, a concept the Jews had difficulty believing would be true of their Messiah. Third, Jesus not only presented Himself as the Son of Man who had to suffer and die,  but also as the one who was going to return to glory (Matthew 24:30 Mark 14:62; Luke 17:22; 18:8; 22:69,  etc.). 

At His trial before the Sanhedrin and the high priest Caiaphas, He clearly identified Himself as the "Son of Man' ' referred to in Daniel 7:13, 14. 

 I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom that all the peoples,  nations, and men of every language might serve Him... 

 Caiaphas asked Jesus, " 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One [God)? And Jesus said, "I am (ego eimi]; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark w-61-62). Saying that,  Jesus made a powerful assertion about His coming return with great glory to judge and rule over the earth In that encounter with Caiaphas it is significant that Jesus accepted simultaneously the titles ''Son of Man' ' and "Son of the Blessed One' ' (compare John 3:15-17). 

Gleason Archer explains why the Messiah would of necessity have two natures, human and divine:

 This raises the question of what the title ' 'Son of Man"  .. signified. Why was the Messiah represented as a glorified human being rather than as the divine King of Glory? The answer is to be found in the necessity of the Incarnation as indispensable to man's redemption. The fallen, guilty race of Adam could not have their sins atoned for except by a Sin-Bearer who represented them as a true human being as He laid down His life for their sake.  The Old Testament term for Redeemer is go el, which implies ''kinsman-redeemer.' ' He therefore had to be related by blood to the person whose cause he took over and whose need he supplied, whatever it was, whether to buy him back from slavery (Leviticus 25:48), to redeem his forfeited property foreclosed on a mortgage (Levitucus 25:25), to care for his childless widow (Ruth 3:13), or to avenge his blood on the murderer (Numbers 35:19). 

God revealed Himself to Israel as go el of His covenant people (Exodus 6:6; 15:13  Isaiah 43:1; Psalm 19.14... ); but before God became Man by the miracle of the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth, it was a mystery to God's ancient people how He could ever qualify as their go el. God was their Father by creation, to be sure, but go el implies a blood relationship on a physical level. And so God had to become one of us in order to redeem us from the guilt and penalty of our sin. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth' '  (John 1:14). 

God as God could not forgive us for our sins unless our sins were fully paid for; otherwise He would have been a condoner and protector of the violation of His own holy law It was only as a man that God in Christ could furnish satisfaction sufficient to atone for the sins of mankind; for only a man, a true human being, could properly represent the human race. But our Redeemer had to be God, for only God could furnish a sacrifice of infinite value, to compensate for the penalty of eternal hell that our sin demands,  according to the righteous claims of divine justice.  Only God could have devised a way of salvation that made it possible for Him to remain just and at the same time become the Justifier of the ungodly (Romans 4:5), instead of sending them to the everlasting perdition they deserved... for it was the perfect Man who was also infinite God that furnished an effectual sacrifice for all believers of every age.8 

 Christ s use of the term Son of Man takes on its fullest implications when one considers the Daniel 7:l3 reference. The title is undeniably messianic, and Christ clearly claimed to be the one referred to by Daniel 7:13. The title in Daniel seems to have been understood by the Jews as messianic, but the two assertions added by Jesus were not counted on by the Jewish leaders. First, the Jews saw a conquering Messiah in the prophetic forecast, not a suffering one. Their emphasis was more on a political than spiritual deliverer. Yet Jesus portrayed the Son of Man as a suffering Messiah, one who must come to die.  Second, the Jewish leaders had not looked to the Messiah's being God incarnate. Traditionally, it was one thing to claim Messiahship but it was something entirely different to claim to be a divine Messiah. 

In summary, the title "Son of Man,' ' an obscure term to Jesus' contemporaries, was laden with insights into the nature of the Messiah as kinsman-redeemer, suffering servant, and coming judge and world ruler

 Son of God

 We now come to the phrase, Son of God. How are we to understand it? That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity, is essential to the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus is the Son of God in Scripture. The Father did not become man. The Spirit did not become man. The Son became man. Some people have questions about the word Son interpreting it, wherever it appears, in the literal sense, as a son is born to a father and mother. According to their reasoning,  there is no way Jesus could be God because he was God's son. Some people, using the fact that Jesus is a son, might say, "Did you ever hear of a son who did not have a beginning?'' By this they mean to contrast the "created'' son with the uncreated Father. Of course, the question may be turned around, ''Did you ever hear of a father who didn't have a beginning?" The term ' 'Son (huios] of God' '  can be used to imply the full deity of Christ just as the term "Son of Man," as discussed earlier, implied His full humanity (and deity). 

 Son of Man = Full Humanity (and Deity) 

Son of God = Full Deity

 W.G.T. Shedd states, ' 'the denomination 'Son, '  given to the second trinitarian person, denotes an immanent and eternal relation of the essence.'' An obvious implication of Shedd's point is that if the Father is eternal, then so is the Son. As Schultz points out,   "Christ's sonship and the First Person s fatherhood do not connote inferiority either of essence or position.' '10

Boettner makes a key point: 

 In connection with an earlier treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity we have pointed out that in theological language the terms ' 'Father' ' and ' 'Son" carry with them not our occidental ideas of, on the one hand,  source of being and superiority, and on the other,  subordination and dependence, but rather the Semitic and oriental ideas of likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being It is, of course, they Semitic consciousness that underlies the phraseology of Scriptures, and whenever the Scriptures call Christ the "Son of God" they assert His true and proper Deity. It signifies a unique relationship that cannot be predicated of nor shared with any creature. As any merely human son is like his father in his essential nature, that is, possessed of humanity, so Christ, the Son of God, was like His Father in His essential nature, that is, possessed of Deity.11

 Schultz elaborates: 

 Although others in Scripture are called ' 'sons of God,'' for example, angels, Adam Ezekiel, and Christians, Christ is the Son in a unique and exclusive sense, Griffith Thomas carefully notes that the title ' 'Son of God' ' is found in these forms in the Greek –  sometimes with the article before each of the two words, sometimes with the article omitted altogether.  The first of these forms, at least, is a title of deity and is found twenty-five times in the New Testament applied to Christ. By this title the Jews understood the high claims of Christ and condemned Him because of its meaning and implications (Matthew 26:63;  Luke 22:70; John 19:7). It was a claim to deity and not merely to Messiahship.  The Lord never classified His sonship with the sonship of others. He actually went into detail to keep the two distinct and separate (John 20:17). The disciples understood that Christ as the Son of God was the eternal God."

 What becomes evident is that the various uses of the title point to the truth of the Incarnation – that God became a man. If the term Son of Man means that Christ is man, the term Son of God means that Christ is God.