Does the Title “Son of God” Describe Jesus’ Divinity or Humanity?

Christians reading through the Bible will often notice two important titles for Christ — “son of God” and “son of man” — and walk away with the impression that each title corresponds to one of Jesus’ natures. The title “son of God” corresponds to his divine nature, and “son of man” corresponds to his human nature. Many trinitarians rightly push back against this perception, noting that “son of man” is also used as a reference to Jesus’ divinity. John Piper wrote the following in an article for Desiring God:

The common understanding is that “Son of God” implies his deity—which it does—and that “Son of Man” implies his humanity, which it does too.

He was a son of man, that is, a human being. And he is the Son of God, in that he has always existed as the Eternally Begotten One who comes forth from the Father forever. He always has, and he always will. He is the Second Person of the Trinity with all of the divine nature fully in him… So that’s the common understanding: he is both divine and he is human—two natures, one person.

The more sophisticated and important historical insight is that the term “Son of Man” doesn’t merely align him with humanity. It is probably taken from Daniel 7. And if you read that chapter you’ll see that the Son of Man is a very exalted figure: not just a human figure but an exalted figure. It was Jesus’ favorite self-designation…

“Son of Man” has the double meaning of human being and, according to Daniel 7, exalted heavenly one. And Jesus means to communicate both of those.

As Piper notes, the term “son of man” as it is applied to Jesus conveys a double meaning. According to his human nature through Mary, Jesus is a descendant of the first man, Adam, and is thus considered his son (this term in scripture refers not only to immediate children, but to grandchildren and further descendants). However, Daniel provides additional information about a particular son of man who is presented before God, arriving in the clouds of heaven (typically a reference to divinity), and who is then granted all authority over all peoples. Some argue that this man is worshipped by all nations; others say that he is simply “served”. Regardless of one’s position on that detail, the son of man is clearly exalted above all rule and authority. For the sake of argument, let’s agree that the term “son of man” truly portrays Jesus’ divinity, as trinitarians generally believe.

Typically, this double meaning is readily affirmed concerning the title “son of man,” but I have yet to hear a trinitarian argue that the title “son of God” also reflects a similar double meaning, even though there is good reason to believe that it does. Pattern christology affirms that the title “son of God” truly does reference Jesus’ divine nature as part of a double meaning that is similar to what “son of man” conveys. However, the title itself primarily describes an attribute of his human nature, Jesus being a direct descendant (son) of God, in the same way that his brethren, Christians, are sons/daughters of God.

To rightly understand biblical teaching in this area, we need a clear and consistent hermeneutic (rule of interpretation) to govern our understanding of titles in scripture. First we’ll look at the nature of titles in general, then examine the title “son of God” in particular, to determine if viewing Christ’s sonship toward God as a property of his divinity makes biblical sense.

To begin, it’s important to distinguish between two sources of meaning for a title — its descriptive meaning, and its contextual meaning. The descriptive meaning of a title contains the information about a person (etc.) that you would learn from the title alone, the particular arrangement of words and their natural meaning given the time/place/genre of literature (etc). Applying the title “king” to Herod (in e.g. Mat 2) tells us that the person in view was a ruler over a particular domain. Luke gives him the title “king of Judea,” specifying the place (Luk 1). Knowing that the title was given in Roman times, we can tell that he had more dominion than tetrarchs over Judea, but he was under the authority of Rome. Other conclusions could be reached by further parsing out what the title describes about the man, what it meant to be a king in Roman times.

The contextual meaning of a title contains information about a particular person (etc.) that extends beyond what the title describes, to include the whole life, thinking, and actions of that person. Herod was not just a king, he was a husband of at least ten wives, and a father of many children. It would not be accurate to say that all kings have ten wives, or even that all kings have a wife; marriage to one or more wives is not intrinsic to what it means to be a king. The title “king” describes a person with a particular dominion; it doesn’t say anything about his family life.

However it is still accurate in human language to say something like the following: “The king has had ten wives!” Using a definite article (“the”) tells the reader that we are speaking of a particular king, who has done various actions in time and history. Some of these actions relate to his kingship, and some do not. The descriptive nature of the title helps us to understand which person is in view (“the president of the United States,” “my husband,” “her friend” etc.). Once that person is referenced however, it is appropriate to speak of the entire person’s thoughts, actions, and life, not only those things relevant to the title that was used.

This difference between the descriptive meaning and the contextual meaning of a title is what drives the double meaning of “son of man” described by John Piper. The descriptive meaning of the title is that the person in view is a descendant of Adam. He isn’t a cherub; he isn’t a dog. He is a human being, created in the image and likeness of Adam (Gen 5:1-3, 1Co 15:47-49).

In calling Himself “the son of man” however, Jesus isn’t simply claiming to be human. In addition to that, he claims to be the particular son of man who is described by Daniel as being “seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mar 14:62). He is claiming to be a divine human, or at least a highly exalted human. This evokes all of the contextual meaning of the term “son of man,” including things that are not necessarily true of all sons of man, such as his sovereign authority over all nations.

Now that we understand the difference between the descriptive and contextual meanings of a title, we can turn to answer the question at hand. Does the title “son of God” describe Jesus’ divine nature, or does it describe his human nature? Without question, the Bible refers to the son of God as divine; both trinitarians and patternists would agree on this point. But does the title itself describe divinity, or is it the context of a particular son of God, prophesied by the old testament, that causes the term to take on this meaning?

How we answer this question profoundly impacts the way in which we view the structure of the godhead. If Jesus’ sonship flows from his divine nature, then we would expect to see multiple persons within the godhead relating as father and son. If Jesus’ sonship flows from his human nature however, then like the relationship that normal Christians experience, there would be a father/son relationship outside of the godhead, between Jesus as a man, and God as a whole.

Like the term “son of man,” the title “son of God” is applied to many individuals throughout scripture, including individuals who are not considered divine. Let’s consider the cases of Adam, Christians, and angels respectively.

In Luke’s genealogy of Christ, we are told that Adam was “the son of God” (Luk 3:38), which is helpful because it gives us context for what Luke means by the term when he later applies it to Christ. Adam is a particularly interesting case, because the apostle Paul draws a close parallel between Adam and Jesus, going so far as to refer to Jesus as the “last Adam.” (1Co 15:45-49) In particular, he describes our relationship to both Adam and Christ as one of image-bearing — just as we bore the image of the man of dust, so we will bear the image of the man from heaven.

So what does it mean when scripture tells us that Adam was a son of God? To be a (natural) son of a father is to be given the image and likeness of your father; this is why children often look like their parents. In Adam’s case, this means that he was an image-bearer of God (Gen 1:26-27), just as sons of Adam are image-bearers of Adam (Gen 5:1-3), and by extension, image-bearers of God (Gen 9:6). Granted, this image is marred by the fall of man, such that we are now illegitimate children of God (Heb 12:8), and by our spiritual nature, children of Satan (Jhn 8:44, Gen 3:15). But in his original creation, Adam was considered a son of God — not because he was divine in any way, but because he was created in the image and likeness of God.

So when we look at the title “son of God” as it’s applied to the last Adam, Jesus Christ, should we view it in a fundamentally different way than we do in the case of the first Adam? Or should we understand the phrase through the lens and the context of the first Adam’s sonship as describing Jesus’ human nature, as an image-bearer of God? There is an argument to be made for the former, which I’ll address in a little while. But the weight of this evidence alone pushes hard against the idea that the title “son of God” describes Jesus’ divine nature. Rather, the title describes his human nature, but contextually, the particular son of God being described is also divine.

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1:13-15)

Those who follow Jesus are also called sons of God. This is seen in many places, but Romans 8 in particular is difficult to reconcile with the trinitarian conception of the title “son of God”.

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” … and if children, then heirs–heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Rom 8:14-15, 17)

Here Paul is not merely applying a title to the believer; he is drawing conclusions and generating theology based on what that title describes. We are called “sons of God” because we are actually adopted by God through his Spirit. We are not sons of one person of the godhead (God the Father); we are sons of God. Because God is our father, we are therefore heirs of God. Children inherit from their parents; therefore we inherit from God, because we share a real father-son, parent-child relationship between God and ourselves. In particular, as the passage goes on to describe, we inherit the whole of creation itself (which is what God owns and is able to give us).

The difficult piece for trinitarian theology is that we are made co-heirs with Christ. This implies that Jesus is also an heir for the same reasons — he is an heir because he is a son of God. He is not the son of one person of the godhead (God the Father); he is a son of God. God is his father; he is created in God’s image, according to his human nature (Col 1:15), and therefore he inherits from God as a man. If scripture didn’t refer to Him as God’s son, or if it didn’t refer to Him as being truly human, perhaps an argument could be made that he inherits for a different reason (e.g. Gen 15:2). But all over the place, the Bible uses the same exact language to refer to Jesus’ relationship with the Father that it uses to speak of our relationship with the Father, and this makes it very difficult to interpret Jesus’ relationship as being fundamentally of a different kind from our own (a divine generation of the Son from the Father, outside of time, vs an in-time relationship between a human being and God). In contrast to trinitarian claims, which divides Jesus’ sonship from our own, scripture seems intent on drawing a parallel between Jesus and his brothers’ relationship with God as our father.

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'” (Jhn 20:17)

Notably, angels are also given the title “son of God”, in anywhere from three to six verses (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, Deut 32:8, Gen 6:2, 6:4). The verses in Job are fairly well accepted as referring to angelic beings, whereas the Deuteronomy and Genesis passages are debated. This challenges the idea that sonship comes exclusively from image-bearing, because (purportedly) angels are not created in the image of God, yet they are described as sons of God. It could therefore be asked that if angels draw their sonship from a source other than image-bearing, why is it a problem to view Jesus as drawing his sonship from a source other than image-bearing, namely his divine nature? This is a good question that is well worth our time and consideration.

First, we need to be clear. The objection is not that all beings with the title “son of God” must be creatures in the image of God; that is not how human language works. The same words that are applied to one group of people can mean one thing, while assigning an entirely different meaning to another group of people, depending on the context. For example, the title “best man” could be applied to one person, to denote a particular role that he played in a wedding. At the same time, the same title could also be applied to a contractor who was found to be the “best man” for the job, when a basement needed to be refinished.

The issue at play here is that the title “son of God,” as it is applied to Jesus, seems to deeply parallel the way in which the same title is applied to everyday Christians. He/we are sons of God, therefore he/we are heirs of God, and co-heirs with one another. Because we are all sons of God, we all have the same father, and are therefore brothers (and sisters) of Jesus. Just as Adam and we are image-bearers of God, scripture describes Jesus as being the image of God. Beyond merely granting us the same title as Christ, the Bible describes a real, shared familial relationship that we have with God, as if it were the same kind of real, familial relationship that Jesus has with God (while at the same time being God incarnate). Because we share a human nature with Christ, and because this familial relationship is a part of our human interaction with God, what reason do we have to view Jesus’ relationship as fundamentally different, a property of his divine nature?

Trinitarians can’t therefore resolve these issues in their viewpoint by simply pointing out that other creatures are given the title “son of God.” They need to demonstrate that the meaning God gives to that title in the case of Christ is fundamentally different from the meaning given in the case of Christians and Adam, despite his giving strong reasons in the text of scripture to view them in the same way.

As a secondary point, it’s worth noting that the Bible doesn’t actually tell us that angels are not created in the image of God. That is something we assume and bring to the text, not something revealed in scripture. We know that humans are given that elevated status, but we assume that we are the only such order of being, and scripture explicitly claims that there are at least two such orders of being, though it is rarely noticed (1Co 15:47-49). I won’t spend the time at this point defending the possibility, as the subject is a bit speculative in both directions. But it’s worth noting that there are good reasons to at least entertain the possibility that angels are also in the image of God, created to take dominion over the heavens just as we were given the earth. If that is the case, then it would follow that even their sonship toward God should be viewed through a similar lens as our own. In any case, doing so is unnecessary given the previous line of reasoning, so I’ll leave that issue until time allows for a fuller development of the subject.

At this point, we’ve seen strong evidence to suggest that the title “son of God” should be viewed as describing Jesus’ human nature. On the other hand, there are plenty of passages which use the title “son of God” to refer to a subject who considered to be divine. This is best explained in the same way that “son of man” is used to reference divinity, by appealing to its contextual meaning. Even though the title itself does not describe divinity (not all sons of man are divine; not all sons of God are divine), there is a particular son of God/son of man who claims divinity for Himself. This hermeneutic principle of distinguishing between the descriptive and contextual meanings of a title can elegantly explain the vast majority of biblical texts which speak of the son as being divine.

To provide just one example, Colossians 1 is a major trinitarian prooftext which speaks of the Son as creating the universe, something which only God can be attributed with doing. What’s often missed by trinitarians is that this same son is described as shedding his blood on the cross, something which could only have been done by Jesus’ human nature (1Ti 6:13-16).

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:19-20)

Because the same title “son of God” speaks of both human and divine activities, even trinitarians need a hermeneutic principle like this to make sense of how scriptures use the title “son of God” to represent actions done by both of Jesus’ natures. Wayne Grudem acknowledges this in his Systematic Theology:

c. Titles That Remind Us of One Nature Can Be Used of the Person Even When the Action Is Done By the Other Nature: The New Testament authors sometimes use titles that remind us of either the human nature or the divine nature in order to speak of the person of Christ, even though the action mentioned may be done only by the other nature than the one we might think of from the title. For example, Paul says that if the rulers of this world had understood the wisdom of God, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). Now when we see the phrase “the Lord of glory” it reminds us specifically of Jesus’ divine nature. But Paul uses this title (probably intentionally to show the horrible evil of the crucifixion) to say that Jesus was “crucified.” Even though Jesus’ divine nature was not crucified, it was true of Jesus as a person that he was crucified, and Paul affirms that about him even though he uses the title “the Lord of glory.”

— Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, chapter 26

Both trinitarians and patternists rely on this principle. The difference is that trinitarians believe that the title “son of God” describes Jesus’ divine nature (or as Grudem puts it, “reminds us of Jesus’ divine nature”). Patternists on the other hand believe that the title “son of God” describes his human nature. For both positions, any activities done by the other nature are explained through the above principle.

So the fact that scripture refers to a person called “the Son” as being divine, or doing divine things (as we see in Colossians 1), does not prove that we should understand there to be a second person in the godhead called “the Son”. Patternists can explain the same phenomenon by claiming that Jesus is called “the Son” because of his human nature, and divine activities attributed to this human son of God are understood through the context of a particular son of God who is also divine.

To determine which viewpoint is correct, trinitarians and patternists need to make an argument that the descriptive meaning of the title “son of God” refers to one nature or the other. In this article, we’ve gone through a sampling of the evidence that suggests a human sonship for Christ, such that God is the Father of Jesus according to his human nature, in the same way that God is the Father of Christians according to our human natures. Much more evidence toward that end exists in the pages of scripture, and Lord-willing we’ll expound upon it further as time permits. I have yet to find a clear and thorough trinitarian argument for divine sonship which doesn’t conflate the contextual and descriptive meanings of the title in the prooftexts used. Hopefully this website will surface the need for more clarity in this area among those advancing trinitarian theology.

Some trinitarians have, at the very least, offered objections to a human sonship for Christ. Minor objections are addressed in a follow-up article, but one significant (and compelling) objection has been raised which threatens the entire system of pattern christology. If Jesus is the son of God according to his human nature, then why do some verses in the Bible speak of a father/son relationship that existed before Jesus ever took on human flesh? This objection is compelling enough that it drove the creation of the third tenet, that Jesus had a created nature prior to the incarnation known as the Angel of the Lord, which was truly God and truly a creature.