Son of God, Son of man
is it possible to reconcile these titles not only in dogma but in thought and action?
In the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus identifies himself as “the door of the sheep,” (10:7) and also “the good shepherd” (10:11).1 A door is one thing, and a shepherd is something else. Which is it? we might then wonder.
Of course, Jesus would be liable to upbraid us for engaging in this manner of literalistic and dichotomous thinking in just the same manner as he rebuked his disciples for the same thing. Consider, for instance, the following exchange in chapter sixteen in the Gospel of Matthew:
6Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?…How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Hence, returning to the pastoral “I AM” statements in the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John, the more appropriate question is “in what way can both a door and a shepherd be made intelligible as concrete symbols of Christ’s being and power?” In brief, it is both through Christ, as through a door, and by his lead, as that of a shepherd in respect to his flock, that a person finds the right configuration of his soul in this world.
A similar question that has perplexed me for some time has been how to reconcile Christ’s apparently disjunctive identifications as “the Son of God” and “the Son of man.” Even more than “a door” and “a shepherd,” these designations seem divergent. But, as before, if we blame the text for our inability to comprehend it, we only harm ourselves.
Christ’s designation as the “Son of God” is axiomatic as the Second Person of the Trinity. Hence, the real question is how to achieve consilience between this dogma and his simultaneous title as “the Son of man,” which strikes us as much more enigmatic. Though the title appears in the Old Testament,2 it is in the Gospels that it is explicitly yoked to Christ:
“For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done” (Matthew 16:27).
Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28).
“… then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory…” (Matthew 24:30).
“But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64; cf. Mark 14:62).
“But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69).
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:53-54).
… and in the midst of the [seven] lampstands one like a Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength (Revelation 1:13-16).
As noted, the seeming paradox had presented itself as a sort of stumbling-block for me. Recently, however, I hit upon a connection that shed light on the essence of “sonship” and, on the occasion of Fathers’ Day here in the United States yesterday, I was inspired to attempt to articulate it.
When Christ designates himself as “the Son of God,” it is clear by the context that he means indicate his own homogeneity in spirit with God, whom he calls “my Father.” This relation is codified in the Nicene Creed with “the begotten, not made” clause, “of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made.”3 A creature or creation bears the seal of its creator, but is not of one substance with him. Hence, Christ is begotten and not created because he is indeed consubstantial with him. Perhaps, in this light, the apparently divergent designation of Christ as “the Son of man” can begin to become intelligible to us. The Nicene Creed indicates this much:
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
And the topic is further elaborated under the rubric of “the hypostatic union” of Christ in the Athanasian Creed:
…we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ…
Hence, Christ is of one substance with God and of one substance with man. In this way, he can be the son of both.
But what does this matter other than as a quibble for theologians and a shibboleth to identify official heretics? I would like to explore two points in this respect. The first relates to the so-called “tropological” interpretation of this dogma and the second to its significance vis-á-vis the evolution of consciousness.
Some readers may be familiar with the designation above, and the allusion that the term “tropological” bears to the medieval tradition of scriptural exegesis. In brief, each verse is posited to bear at least four dimensions of significance, from the literal or historical meaning, to the allegorical or metaphorical, to the moral or tropological, to the anagogical or mystical. The third category of interpretation—the tropological or moral dimension of the text—designates the manner by which Scripture is intended to inform the will and not merely the intellect. In other words, a story may have a plot, and the plot may be allegorical, but it may also have a moral. Tropein is the Greek word for “walk.” Hence, a plant is said to be “heliotropic” if it walks together with the Sun along its arc through the skyway. In this manner, the plant is “the daughter of the Sun.” In this manner, the Sun is lord and father to the plant and not merely because of a consubstantiality between them—as Böhme for instance, identifies4—but of a conspiracy5 or perichoresis, between them
Similarly, Christ serves God and hence is called “the Son of God.” As the Son of God, he is king, lord, and father over humanity. But Christ also serves humanity, and for this reason is also called “the Son of man.” The paradox is perhaps most thoroughly reconciled in the iconic scene following the “Last Supper” in chapter thirteen of the Gospel of John in which Jesus washes the disciples’ feet:
4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
…
12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
Christ came to show humanity what “lordship” or “dominion”6 really means. As the Master sayeth, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.”7
Jeremy Naydler, in his essay “Christ and the Gods” from his collection The Future of the Ancient World, sheds a fascinating light on the question of Christ’s simultaneous nature as “Son of God” and “Son of man” when he observes that the Incarnation was not an accidental event in the history of the world, but a moment no less integral to its unfolding than the pollination of a flower is to the future seed. In his words:
The early Christians not only objected to worshipping the gods, they also desisted from worship of the angels. Their reason was that the location of the divine source of the gods had shifted from heaven to earth, and specifically to within the human being as ‘image of God.’ This was already presaged in Judaism, and our story indicates just where we are to look for what it is that distinguishes the angels from the gods. The gods demand from human beings an attitude of worship. But the angels, insofar as they acknowledge the cosmic Logos-nature of the human archetype, feel compelled to worship the divine within the human. For the divine presence within the human being is greater than all the divine multitude (whether conceived of as gods or angels) precisely because it is, even if but potentially realized, a presence closer to the Godhead than they. For it is the creative Logos from which they—both gods and angels—have sprung. This was the insight that had seized hold of the early Greek philosophers, who ranked the cosmic Logos or Nous above the gods, just as it had caused the Jewish prophets to denounce worship of any other divinities than the One God Yahweh. We could say, therefore, that the angels differ from the gods by virtue of this fundamental reorientation, which was, as it were, clinched by the fully realized ‘incarnation’ of the Logos in Jesus, the second Adam.
Owen Barfield makes a similar statement near the end of Saving the Appearances:
in the course of the earth’s history, something like a Divine Word has been gradually clothing itself with the humanity it first gradually created—so that what was first spoken by God may eventually be respoken by man.8
What does this mean? That if a person wishes to make contact with the higher worlds in the place where they manifest most immediately in this one, he should not imagine he could flee from own soul and still retain this privileged access.
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
… and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a Son of Man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
e.g.
In Paradise the substance of the divine world penetrated the substance belonging to time, comparable to the power of the sun penetrating a fruit growing on a tree, and endowing it with such qualities as render it lovely to the sight and good to the taste. (Mysterium)
i.e. “together in spirit”
Cf. Genesis 1:26.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Matthew 10:38.
Barfield, 128.
Great thoughts. I have also been thinking about these things. George MacDonald highlights the Fatherhood of God and Sonship of Christ in many of his stories. He has helped me to understand that Christ came specifically to reveal the Father to us. I think this gets quite overlooked much of the time. We take it for granted. That’s just how we are when we have heard things over and over again. But I had a mini apocalypse about it, in a sense, when I realized that there is no Father without the Son. The son makes a man a father. The only true revealer of a father is a son. This may sound banal but it was so illuminating to me. The story of the prodigal son took a new turn too. What the prodigal son didn’t know was that he was the son! And if he didn’t know what it meant to be the son (which is why he asked for his inheritance and left town) then he did not “see” his father. I’m sure you have thought about these things too. I just had to share my little eureka moment!
As an aside, have you ever thought about animism in light of Christ being “fully God and fully man”? This has been swirling around in my head for some time as well. I think this also ties into Barfield’s chapter on the Israelites in Saving the Appearances. The ineffable name of God, the Tetragrammaton. I can’t elaborate it all right here. But just thought I would ask.
I like your ending statement " he should not imagine he could flee from own soul and still retain this privileged access." I think there is much to unpack in those words in relation to Son of Man and it's relation to evolution of consciousness, which is the evolution of humankind. To Father anything, there must be a yielding of life-giving forces, and in terms of consciousness this involves a partial sacrifice of self - a giving up of something that the soul processes as desire. The fleeing of father responsibility to his family is quite common in our modern culture in the U.S. I see this problem as a result of a larger one, which goes back to your ending statement. How can mankind neglect both the discipline and nourishment that the soul requires for the evolution of consciousness and still expect evolution to happen in a healthy progression?
As always, Steiner explains it best ;) From R. Steiner’s Lecture XI Gospel of Matthew- September 1910: “When we observe mankind — either at the present time, or at the time of Christ Jesus — we must recognize that rudiments lie in men just as plants contain seeds, even when only in leaf and before the blossom and fruit is formed. In looking at such a plant we can say: As surely as this plant which so far only possesses green leaves has within it the germ of both flower and fruit, so man, who at the time of Christ Jesus possessed only sentient and intellectual-soul, holds within him the germ of the spiritual-soul, which then opens itself to the spirit-self, in order that the higher triad, as a new spiritual gift from God, may flow into him from above. Thus we can say: Man unfolds through the content and qualities of his soul in the same way as a plant unfolds in turn green leaves, blossoms, and fruit. In developing his sentient-soul, intellectual-soul, and spirit-soul man develops something that corresponds to the flower of his being, and lifts this up to receive the inpouring of the Divine Spirit from above, so that by receiving the spirit-self he may rise to ever further heights of human evolution.
At the time Christ Jesus walked on earth the normal man had developed the rational-soul as his highest principle; this was not as yet capable of receiving into it the spirit-self; but out of the same man as now had developed to the rational soul the spiritual-soul would evolve as his child — as the consummation of his being, which later would become the receptacle for the spirit-self.
What is to unfold out of the whole nature of man, and come forth from him like a blossom? How was this described in the Mysteries, and in the circle where Christ Jesus spoke to His disciples of their further development? Translated into our language it was called the ‘Son of Man.’ The Greek has a less restricted meaning than our word ‘son,’ meaning ‘son of a father,’ and signifies rather the offspring of a living organism, something that evolves out of such an organism, as a blossom evolves from a plant which at first possessed only green leaves. So it was said of the ordinary man, whose being had not yet blossomed into the spiritual-soul, that the ‘Son of Man’ had not yet evolved in him.”