THE SON OF MAN THE SON OF GOD
‘When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?… And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’
The title ‘Son of man’ was perhaps a Messianic title. The other title, the ‘Son of God,’ was undoubtedly Messianic. Are there not signs that, for our Lord Himself and His apostles, it meant what the Church means by it to-day?
I. ‘The Son of man.’—There are three cases of the emphatic use of the title ‘Son of man,’ which postulate, if their full value is to be given them, a recognition in Jesus of something far transcending the ordinary human consciousness. They imply the consciousness (1) of power to forgive sins (St. Matthew 9:6); (2) of authority to revise a Divinely given law (St. Matthew 12:8); (3) of possessing the very spirit of God (St. Matthew 12:32). And the more than human implications of the title become more emphatic as the Gospel story proceeds. The King that was to come was to be as Daniel foretold, a Son of man (Daniel 7:1-14); one who would seek and save the lost (St. Mark 10:45); one who would serve rather than be served (St. Luke 19:10). Yet the claim was to nothing less than Divine kingship. Henceforth ye shall see the ‘Son of man’ sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven (St. Matthew 26:64).
II. ‘The Son of God.’—Consider that other title, ‘Son of God,’ which, at this critical moment of His ministry, our Lord accepted from St. Peter. To speak of the Divine King as the Divine ‘Son’ was to follow the language of the Old Testament, especially of the Second Psalm. But our Lord’s previous objection to this title, His adoption of the title ‘Son of man’ instead of it, and His acceptance of it at last from St. Peter, must have had some meaning. If Jesus were ‘Son of God’ in such a sense that ‘in Him was all the fulness of the Godhead bodily’ (Colossians 2:9); if He were Son in such a sense that ‘He who had seen the Son had seen the Father also’ (St. John 14:9)—then, to come to Jesus was to come to God. And this was the belief that grew up slowly in the hearts of the disciples as they listened to His teaching, and this was the meaning of the confession that found utterance through St. Peter’s lips. We get light on the implications of this Confession from the reply it at once drew from our Lord: ‘On this rock’ (of your confessed faith in me) ‘I will build My church.’
III. Man’s sonship through Him.—The Gospels make it plain that our Lord’s teaching was that all men might come to God through Him. If we ourselves would claim an equal sonship, we must put in evidence words of authority and works of power like to His. ‘To as many as received Him to them gave He power to become the Sons of God, even to those who believe on His name.’ ‘Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?’ Shall we still be debating whether He was but a son of God like ourselves, or, as St. Peter confessed, ‘ the Son of the living God’?
—Canon Beeching.
(SECOND OUTLINE)
A THREEFOLD REVELATION
The Apostle gives us a threefold revelation of the Son of man.
I. The Christ of prophecy.—In that single sentence, ‘Thou art the Christ,’ St. Peter declared his belief in our Lord as the Messiah of prophecy. Christ (Anointed) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew title of our Lord—the Anointed One—the Messiah.
II. The Christ of history.—The second article of this creed of the Apostle far transcends the first in its flight of faith. It uplifts us to the very throne of the Eternal Godhead—‘Thou art the Son of the Living God.’ We are now face to face with the Christ of history—God manifest in the flesh.
III. The Christ of experience.—Above all, Christ in the heart is the complete creed of the Apostle. All Scripture was written ‘that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His Name.’
Archdeacon Madden.