WHY JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD

. It is necessary to understand the exact sense in which God the Son is referred to by each of these terms.

The description of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ makes it clear that the term ‘Son of Man’ does not mean ‘one born of a man’; the meaning is something else. The fact that Jesus suffered death on the cross on behalf of the whole of humanity and that He is given the title ‘the last Adam’ [1.Cori: 15: 45] enables us to understand that the term ‘Son of Man’ means ‘One who represents the human race.’ In other words, as the redeemer of mankind, Jesus became the Son [Representative] of the human race or the ‘Son of Man.’

The term ‘Son of God’ also has to be understood in its proper sense; the birth of a son in our human context involves the physical relationship between a man and a woman; in this context a son has both a father and a mother. With regard to the ‘Son of God’ we see that He has only a Father. [Only as the Son of Man did Jesus have a mother— Virgin Mary.

Since as the Son of God Jesus Christ has only a Father, the meaning of the term ‘Son of God’ is not to be understood in the human context. The meaning of the expression ‘Son of Man’ indicates what ‘Son of God’ actually means; that meaning is ‘The One Who represents or reveals God.’ It was in this sense that the Jews understood the meaning of this term; they accused Jesus of blasphemy, because He said, “I am the Son of God” [John: 10:36]. They said to Him, “thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”[John: 10:33].

This proves that according to the Jews, ‘Son of God’ means God or One Who has the authority to stand in the place of God. This is made very clear in John 5: 18 where we read, “For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” Thus we see that the Jews’ understanding of the meaning of this term justifies our conclusion that it means ‘One Who reveals and represents God.’

There is reason for using the title ‘Son’ as the most suitable term for conveying the idea of the right to represent and reveal another person. In the days of monarchy, it was usually a son who would inherit his father’s throne. The son’s right to the father’s throne implied that he was the one authorized to stand in the place of his father. The idea of the son’s right to represent the father in his absence justifies the use of the term ‘Son of God’ as the most suitable term for conveying the idea that Jesus Christ came into the world revealing and representing God the Father Who is invisible to us.

We read in John. 10: 30 that Jesus said He and the Father are one and in verse 36 we find Jesus explaining that the Jews had rightly understood His words meaning that He is the Son of God. This means it was not about any unity of opinion between the Father and Him, but about their oneness in essence and about the Father being in Him that He referred to by saying that He and the Father are one.

In John 10: 17—18 we read that Jesus said, He was laying down His life, of Himself, and that He had the power to take it again. Jesus’ words, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” [John 2: 19] also expresses the same idea that He had the power to rise from the dead. In Acts 2: 24 we read that it was God Who raised Him up from the dead. The absence of contradiction between these statements is explained by the fact that whatever is done by the Father is considered to have been done by the Son, because they are one and the same in essence.