Past Sermon

Sermon Title: "Son of Man, or Son of God?"
Date: November 25, 2007
Minister: Rev. Charles E. Ensley, Jr.

Lesson:  Matthew 24:30-31, 36-44

Sermon request:  “Jesus called himself ‘Son of Man’—yet he knew he was different and special.  Don’t you think he should have called himself ‘Son of God’?”

Given the fact that the requester underscored “you”—meaning what do I think—I could actually answer this request in one paragraph and we would have a very short sermon today.  I have always felt it both risky and presumptuous for me to imagine just what Jesus was thinking two thousand years ago.  I can only rely on what the gospel-writers have quoted him as saying, after the fact, and that has been tempered by scores of translations over the centuries.  So, if Jesus chose to refer to himself as “Son of Man” instead of “Son of God”, who am I to think he should have called himself by the other title?

However, the requester quite correctly understands that it was only by the title “Son of Man” that Jesus referred to himself in the third person.  Why might not have he used the other?

I selected this sermon request in October for this particular Sunday when I was sorting through your sermon requests and scheduling them.  So it was quite by coincidence that two weeks ago the worship bulletins for the next three months arrived in two boxes.  We’re never sure which box is to be used first, so I opened both up, and received quite a surprise.  On the top of one box was this worship bulletin for next Sunday, the First Sunday in Advent:  “The Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour,” it says, quoting Matthew’s passage we heard today.  On the top of the second box was this worship bulletin for January 20, quoting John:  “This is the Son of God.”  Which one is it, or is it both, as in the hymn we just sang, Beautiful Savior, which twice repeats the line, “Son of God and Son of Man…”?  Those words were written by German Jesuits in the 17th century.  They’re a pretty learned group of scholars; they must have known a thing or two.

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible tackles the issue over the course of twelve pages in a very small font, and believe me, it is not exciting sermon material, but a rather involved and scholarly analysis of the two terms as they were used in both the Old Testament and New Testament.  Basically, it comes down to this:

In the Old Testament, “Son of God” was a term to denote a divine being.  It is used only in Daniel (3:25), to refer to the fourth being King Nebuchadnezzer sees in the furnace along with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.  There are several other references to “son” (lower case) as being someone specially picked by God, such as a particular king.

In the New Testament, there is no doubt that Jesus is considered the Son of God, whether by Mark, who sees Jesus becoming the Son of God at his baptism; Luke, who considers Jesus the Son of God at least from his birth; or John, who considers Jesus to be co-existent with God from the beginning of time.  Paul’s letters, while earlier in date than the synoptic Gospels, represent a more advanced theology.  Paul uses the term “Son of God” often in connection with God’s love and his adoption of believers as his sons, although he employs the titles “Christ”, “Christ Jesus,” “Jesus Christ” and “Lord” much more frequently.

The crucial point, however, is that Jesus did not use the term “Son of God” to refer to himself.  Instead, he frequently used “Son of Man,” as we heard in today’s passage from Matthew, where he uses it five times.

In the Old Testament, “Son of Man” is a term for man, human being, an apocalyptic figure; a prophet, such as Ezekiel.  In the New Testament, it is understood as a term for Jesus, since in the gospels the term is always found in words attributed to Jesus himself.  One gains the impression that he used it without explanation and left it to his hearers to decide what meaning should be attached to it.

However, it is notable that the term is never used in any of his parables, which are perhaps the most characteristic feature of his teaching.  Scholars hypothesize that this may mean that Jesus never used the phrase “Son of Man”, but that it was later added to the tradition by Jewish Christians.

I grant you that this is all dry and technical material.  You should have read the twelve pages of the Interpreter’s Bible!  This subject is probably better suited to a seminary term paper, or even a master’s thesis.  But I have my own little theory.

The term “Son of God” sounds a little pretentious, doesn’t it?  If Jesus were to go around saying that of himself, wouldn’t he have raised more suspicion among the authorities than he already did?  It has been suggested that Jesus, being a Jewish prophet and a man of great humility, could not have ascribed to himself the glory of the heavenly Son of God.  If we understand the term “Son of Man,” unexplained by Jesus himself, to include prophets who found favor with God, might not Jesus have preferred this term to describe himself?  His humility and reticence seem to have kept him from making an open claim of saying, “I’m God’s Son.  Listen to me!”  His hearers evidently found his words enigmatic, and the gospel tradition has preserved the mystery in them.

If the true answer to the requester’s question about the term attributed to Jesus to describe himself shall forever, then, remain a mystery, the more important question for us today is how we see Jesus.  What role do we describe him as having in our lives?

People who can define the moment they “accepted Christ as their personal Savior” will use that exact term.  Sometimes in my pastoral prayers, I hear myself concluding with a litany of names for Jesus, any one of which might have more meaning to one hearer than another.  I’ve called him Savior, Redeemer, Brother, Companion, Friend.  Others refer him to in the gospels as Rabbi, Teacher, Messiah, Lord, Lamb of God, the Christ, the Son of the Most High God.  Unlike other religious leaders of the time, Jesus does not make himself the center of his teaching or demand submission or loyalty to himself as a condition of acceptance or admission to the kingdom of God.

What others called Jesus did not seem to matter to him.  When on trial by the Council the night before his death, they asked him, “Are you, then, the Son of God?”  He said to them, “You say that I am.”  Next, appearing before Pilate, he was asked, “Are you the king of the Jews?”  He answered, “You say so.”  (Luke 22:70; 23:3)

If Jesus were to appear before us today, and we were to ask him by what name or title we should call him, or what role he saw himself having while here on earth, perhaps he might answer us by saying, “Who am I to you?”  For that’s what really matters.  Who is Jesus to you?