The Son of Man

Hello and welcome to the Restless Theologian podcast where we focus on having insightful conversations in biblical history and theology. I'm your host, Zechariah Eshack. For our first episode of season 2, we will be discussing the humanity of Christ. And today, I have with me my good friend, Zach. He's gonna join in with me and kinda discuss this and just kind of, dive deeper into the humanity of Christ in regards to his human emotions.

So how are you doing, Zach? I'm doing great, Zech. Thanks for being here. Zach and Zech in the house. I know.

So I really appreciate you coming on. I know that you've haven't been on a podcast before and little hesitant about it. I think a lot of people are, you know, I I it is actually a lot more difficult to get people to be on. I think that, you know, same goes for me about the whole you can be a little bit self conscious and, it's just how how it is and takes a little bit of practice and I still feel like I am a little bit outside my comfort zone. But I've been praying for opportunities to honor him in new ways, and this opportunity presented itself.

So I guess I just need to obedient and try be obedient and try my best. So here we go. Yeah. Yeah. No.

That's great. That's great to hear. So I wanted to talk about how with Jesus' humanity, there's a couple of different things I wanna touch on. I wanna touch on the titles that he has that kind of declare him to, you know, have a human nature and also the human emotions that he expressed. Because I feel like a lot of times we, what we can do is focus so much on the deity of Christ.

And I think that kind of studying this subject, it was very apparent very quickly that that a lot of heresy and a lot of errors early on in the church were a lot of times related to, the deity or the humanity of Christ. So when I'm talking about the humanity of Christ, I'm talking explicitly about his human nature, his human emotions, the fact that he had a physical body and a rational soul. And there's some titles in scripture that are repeated such as the son of man, which is Christ it's his favorite self designation. Right. It's what he says the most when what he calls himself the most.

And I think that that's very, interesting that he does that. And the other one's the seed of the woman. In Genesis 315, it talks about the seed of the woman that will crush the head of the serpent Mhmm. And then also the son of David. And I didn't really think about, like, I'm aware of that one, but I didn't really think about how much in the gospels that people call him the son of David.

Right. And I think that that's really cool too. So out of those, like, 3 titles, which one kinda stands out to you? As in, like, what just about his personhood, I guess. Yeah.

I mean, obviously, if we start with the son of man, that's that's kind of the most obvious and the easiest to relate to as we are men. So just thinking about how he's expressing himself and the emotions that he's either outwardly showing or or implied internally, I think those are the connections that we as humans can make with him and understand that feeling things, aren't necessarily a bad thing, but there's a divine nature to some of our emotions and being able for us to relate to his human experience and understanding how those same emotions affected him can help lead us to, you know, position ourselves to follow in his footsteps. So Yeah. So I know that you read and, well, did you read or listen to, BB Warfield's On the Emotional Life of Our Lord? That was that was kind of a for a short read, it was dense.

Yeah. It was I did a little bit of both. So I read it, and then I listened to it on YouTube. There's a couple of great sources out there to check out where it's publicly available. I highly recommend just giving it a listen after this.

I process information differently when I read versus when I hear, and I was listening on the way here. And it's just one of the things that stood out was how he talks about not just the emotions that were expressed, but the emotions that never showed up in the Bible too. So you can think about, you know, there there was a never said that Jesus laughed, but there's an intrinsic joy in the way that he's portrayed that you understand that. It's that internal harnessing of kind of the same manifestation of emotion that, like, kinda stood out to me when I was reading reading to it today. So Yeah.

There there was like, what's recorded for us in the gospels are definitely the the most vivid aspects of his emotions. Mhmm. And, you know, obviously, not every emotion was captured. Like you said, you know, like, there's no notation that he laughed. I I would have to say that I'm I would imagine by his tone or not his you can tell the tone that comes through when he's refuting the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Mhmm. You can tell that there's almost a comic sort of comedic sarcasm to some of the stuff he says. You know what I mean? Like, he and I think this is another thing that people this is something that me with my personality, I know that, I'm one of those people that could be a little bit more of a blunt object and I can be a little bit harsh. Mhmm.

And I've over time gotten better with that. But, you know, that was something of a struggle for me is that sometimes other Christians would accuse me of, like, well, that's not very Christ like you're being mean. Mhmm. Even if I didn't say necessarily insult somebody, if I was showed some sort of sarcasm or just basically was a lot more blunt than they would have been, you know, that I would have been accused of being unchrist like. But it's really, I like how in the scriptures that Jesus you know, it notes that he became indignant or that he was irritated Mhmm.

Or that he expressed his anger. For example, like, when, you know, in the temple and people are selling. Right. Yeah. You know?

Flipping tables. Flipping tables. Yeah. You know, making a whip. Mhmm.

And a lot of times, I feel like that's missed in our culture. And, you know, he he said some pretty harsh things about the, called them, about the Pharisees and Sadducees. He called them hypocrites. Right. Called them, serpents, sons of the devil.

You know, I've John the Baptist says similar things. You know, he calls them brood of vipers, and then you even have Paul. He he makes comments like that. So I'd be definitely challenging the person that says that just because you're a Christian, you can't make those kinda comments. I think sometimes they're warranted.

I mean, I think that we should be judicial in when we express that. But I I think it's kinda cool to see that, you know, we don't have to be this emotionless, anger free type people all the time. Right. When I when I think of that story in particular, it makes me think of, the superhero's dilemma. So it's, you know, that you're a superhero.

You're fight literally fighting evil. Like, there's a intrinsic thing where you have to break some stuff, break a few eggs to make a cake. Right? Like, you gotta Yeah. Do things that might not necessarily be perceived as holy necessarily and understanding when the black and white reactions are not not from a selfish point of view, but because you're trying to bring greater good because of it.

And just understanding when it's appropriate to express some of those harsher emotions or come off in that sort of way. Sometimes that's the appropriate way to react, and I think that's just a very interesting story. Right? Yeah. Yeah.

Definitely. Yeah. One of the other emotions that, well, BB Warfield, he kinda has the the book split up in kind of 3 different categories. The first being compassion and love. The second being anger and indignation.

Mhmm. And the third being joy and sorrow. Mhmm. And one of the things I've read was that that Christ has a rational soul in which he expresses sorrow. And that sorrow isn't something that God expresses.

God, like, in his deity doesn't express sorrow. Right. And I found that very fascinating. Like, there there's a couple of times where, like, you know, the passage Jesus wept, you know, supposedly, I think the shortest verse in all the scriptures. And, and I was reading something, and it might have been actually in the BB Warfield book.

But basically, what what he says was that it was actually not not not so much that Lazarus died, which that does make sense because it's like he knew he was gonna resurrect him. Right. I mean, that was in his plan. But, like, just the fact that that sort of sorrow, that sort of pain I mean, he felt it from other people, and I feel like he was very in tune to other people's feelings and their emotions. And just the fact that because of sin and because of the devil, that death became a reality to us.

Right. And then almost like that that made him sorrowful and, like, and pity us. Mhmm. I think it's interesting that you have to sometimes feel the pain to understand the joy. Right?

So just knowing that there's opposites. And if you look at how he expressed himself throughout the bible, it's kind of that that middle ground. Right? It's that had a little bit of temperance involved where it's not always the extremes, one versus the other. A lot of his since like like we said earlier, like, it didn't say that he expressed laughter, but there's still a way to convey joy without doing that.

And it's just having that control and expressing feeling that divine side of the emotion rather than the outward human side of the expression, I think is somewhat interesting too. Having the compulsion as a human to outwardly express ourselves, sometimes you can accomplish the same thing with without being outwardly vocal about it. So Yeah. It's it was I mean, since Christ was the perfect man Mhmm. And I think that when you look at the scriptures, you see that he expressed these emotion emotions perfectly.

Mhmm. So it's like he's the prime example of, like, just when we look to what is a perfect man, we have his example before us about, like, even his, like, gentleness. One of the things that Orfield kinda hones in on is, I I think one of the most briefly mentioned not briefly. I'm sorry. Frequently mentioned, kind of emotions that Christ has a lot of times is pity and compassion.

Right. And I did kinda love that just because, you know, Hebrews talks about that we don't have a great high priest that is unable to sympathize with us. He's able to sympathize with us because he's been tempted like us in every way. So I wanted to touch on a couple of the chat or I'm sorry, a couple of the passages rather that focus in on his compassion. And you can tell that, I mean, throughout the scriptures and especially the gospels, just him his concern for people's emotions, their their sufferings, emotionally, spiritually, and physically.

So this is Matthew 936. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them because they were harassed and helpless like a sheep without a shepherd. Matthew 1414, when he went ashore, he saw a great crowd and he had compassion on them and healed their sick. And this is the one that always gets me. Like, you know, I've never really thought of myself as a very emotional guy.

Like, it's just I think a lot of times people when they look at me, like, I think in the like, a lot of times in the past too, I think I just kind of have a stern look. Yeah. So if you don't know me, you don't know that, like, you know, I could be a comical guy. Like, I think it's just I think when people first meet me or just kinda see me for the first time or first interactions, they're unsure of what to make of me just because and I think it's I don't know. I didn't grow up in an overly emotional household, and I wasn't very emotional myself.

But I would I will say this though that this passage, I always feel like there's, you know, it's different for everybody. But so this is at the pool of, Bethesda. Mhmm. And I really do love this story. But basically and it's John, 56 through 9.

It says, one man was there who was who had been an invalid for 38 years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, do you wanna be healed? The sick man answered, sir, I have no one to put me in the pool when the water is stirred up. And while I'm going, another steps down before me. Jesus said to him, get up, take your take up your bed and walk.

And at once, the man was healed and he took up his bed and walked. And, do you do you know the significance of the the the stirring of the water? You know what that was about? No. No.

I think this is really cool. So so I I guess legend has it that the pool, I think, at Bethesda, when it would get stirred up, that it was an angel that would stir it up. Ah. And any person who was in there first what after it was stirred up was instantly healed of whatever affliction they were suffering from. Mhmm.

And this poor guy, you know, he was paralyzed and he had and when I hear the story, like, I'd almost get emotional from it just because he had no one to help him. Yeah. And then Christ comes and doesn't need to put him in the water. He's like, he just does it. And it just the compassion he had on him.

And a lot of times too, like, people would come up to him and ask him, you know, if you are willing, make me clean. And he says, I am willing. Be cleansed. And I do love that about him just because of the that shows his gentleness and his willingness to heal those that come to him. Mhmm.

I think, when I hear that story, I immediately, like, visually see how it was portrayed in The Chosen and just people crawling over each other trying to to be healed and just everybody serving themselves. Right? There's this man who'd been there for so long and nobody taking the time to just understand him, to try to help him. And just that one moment was enough for him to be healed. And I just think there's a lot of passion just, like, taking your time and just understanding people's situations and reaching out, you know, just a small gesture can be the thing that sets them on a on a new path.

I think that's great. Yeah. Yeah. I actually haven't really watched the The Chosen. It's it's very it's very well done.

It's it's Is it well done? Okay. It's an interesting way to experience the bible for sure. Yeah. I think, you know, I do think that there are some, I do see some of this online where some Mhmm.

Some Christians are a little bit, like, leery of watching it and it's a little bit more of, you know, how accurate is it. And I I haven't watched it, so I can't really can't really pass judgment in any way. But, I mean, I do love any sort of, you know, movies. You know, I do really love this audio Bible word of promise. Mhmm.

Have you ever heard it? You've, had me download it. I have to check it out. So Yeah. Yeah.

The the gospels are amazing. You know, going back to what you said about listening to, on the emotional life of our Lord. Mhmm. I was trying to listen to gent the, Gentle and Lowly. Mhmm.

I'm trying to think who does it. It's it's Dane Ortland, I believe. But I was listening to it and so far it was a good book. I maybe like 35, 40% of the way through it. But I can tell when I listen to something when it's just one person.

I have a tendency to start zoning out. But I think that that's why the word of promise when it comes to the gospels, there's that back and forth. There's that interaction between characters. And I feel like that's what keeps me a little bit more Yeah. And The Chosen in particular, it's great because you do get to see a little bit more of the emotional nature of Christ, which is really interesting, their interpretation of it, because there is that joy and there is celebration and sorrow, and you really do get to see it on his face.

And I think just as humans being able to connect in that way kind of helps reframe some of the stories in a in a unique way. So definitely recommend checking it out. Okay. Yeah. I'll have to I'll have to watch it.

So I kinda wanted to dive deep deeper into, kinda what I said earlier about, the early heresies. And I brought these up. Let's see here. We have Catharism, and that was a little bit more of 1100, and I think it might predate that. So do you the Cathars, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, I have no idea because I've never heard anyone else say it.

I believe that's correct. So with Catharism, it's basically there was a lot to their beliefs, but I think that there was 2 there's 2 different gods. There's the one true God, the good God, and then there was an evil God. And I think that they think the the God of Judaism was evil. Okay.

And that they believe that the New Testament God was the good good God, the righteous one. And but they don't they deny that Jesus had a physical body. So that would also mean that they deny a resurrection. Right. And which is fascinating because Jesus himself argues against the the Sadducees who say there is no resurrection.

Right. And, so they believed him to be more of, like, in the form of an angel, you know, basically the appearance of a physical body only. And that's the same too of docetism, that they believe that Jesus was fully divine and that he was more of like a spiritual apparition. Right. And, so you can already see early on that there's this tendency to separate or maybe magnify one of his natures over the other Mhmm.

Rather than them being in balance. Right. And there was also to, the last one I wanted to bring up was adoptionism. Now adoptionism is basically, from what I've gathered, it's non Trinitarian. And that that Jesus wasn't like fully God until he was quote unquote, like, adopted.

Mhmm. So when he he didn't become God until x y or z or either he was at his baptism or maybe at his resurrection Okay. Then he became fully God. Uh-huh. But he wasn't fully God from beginning.

Mhmm. Okay. So that is a little bit more uncommon. I do do think that there was some maybe some possible expressions of it early on. I do know at the 7th day Adventist, some of them believe it.

And then I think the only theologian that I kinda googled and kind of found was John Stott. He was another one that helped. I think I'm sorry. No. John Stott believe in annihilation annihilationism.

We'll have to talk about that later. Sorry. I'm getting my terms confused. Quite alright. But there's a lot going on here.

But so what do you think about the complexity of understanding his humanity and his divinity together? And I won't go too far down the path of his divinity because that'll be our next episode. But Yeah. I mean, as far as whether I agree with what they were thinking or not. I mean, it even says in the Bible that there's physical touch involved.

So being a purely spiritual being, it doesn't really resonate with me at all. And Yeah. I think part of the reason why he had to become human was to experience the pain that humans are feeling in order to understand, you know, the the suffering. Sometimes you have to go through those things in order to really understand them. It's coming from somebody who had learned a lot of lessons the hard way.

Right? So I think just having the experience and being able to work your way through it makes you understand. And, you know, you can talk to people about circumstances. But once you have gone through some of the difficulties that other people have, you really fully understand the effect that it can have on on the human nature. So Yeah.

So going back to, like, what Hebrew says about him being able to sympathize with us because he was like us in every way except for sin. Right. And so it's he's able to sympathize with our weaknesses. Mhmm. And I think that that I mean, that's a great passage because God doesn't seem so distant.

You know what I mean? He's close to us because he takes part in our human nature. Right. And, in all the extremes. Right?

So it's, you know, my god, my god, why why have you forsaken me? Like, it's it's all the way. You know? It's to the point where it's just, like, desperation, the point of surrender, you know. And, you know, I think we've all all been there to some extreme, you know, and just being able to get into those sorts of depths of emotion, I think, just there's a little bit of comfort in that.

Right? Like, he does understand. You know? Yeah. He does understand.

It doesn't it doesn't the pain while you're going through it doesn't make sense, but there's beauty on the other side of it no matter what. Right? So Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

And it's just the the fact of his willingness to to do it. You know, he himself says, no one takes my life from me, but I lay it down on my own accord. That that I mean, he has the power to do it. No no one could take it from him. He he lays it down.

And I wanted to touch on so what you said kinda made me think of so, you know, how there's, like, the duality in humanity and divinity of Christ. Mhmm. Kinda like there's a duality of in us because we have we're we have a human body, but we also have a soul. Mhmm. So it's like you have the physical and you have the spiritual kinda come together.

We don't really understand it, you know, all that much, but we we do understand that it it is a reality. It's what separates us from the animals. But one of the things I wanted to touch on was that have you ever watched R. C. Sproul or listened to him?

Do you know who he is? No. I'm not familiar. Okay. I really like R.

C. Sproul. He he was a reformed Christian. He he had died, I think, a few years back. But anyway, he when I was watching one of his videos, he really kind of touches a lot on the passive obedience of Christ versus, I'm trying to think if it's, I'm drawing a blank here.

I guess, whatever the opposite of passive is. It'd be intentional, I guess, something like that. You know? I'm sure it'll come to that. So oh, active.

Active. Right. That makes sense. Yeah. So there's active obedience of Christ.

So, it was really I mean, I was brought up, about how, you know, if all Christ needed to do to save us was come down from heaven and die on the cross Mhmm. That why didn't he just show up as a man, you know, fully grown and then just go immediately to the cross. Mhmm. And he touches on how it is actually both are equally important, the active obedience of Christ versus the passive obedience. So when I mean active obedience, it was in his keeping of the law.

So that would be, you know, his baptism, that would be in his keeping of the commandments, and, you know, living a perfect and righteous life. Mhmm. And so that that there's also the passive obedience of Christ, which means that, you know, he emptied himself, which I think is the term like kenosis. I think it's in I think it's comes from the Greek. But basically, he emptied himself of his, like, almost like his right to the divine in a sense.

Not that he was no less divine, but that, like, you know, he it was so apparent about his human nature when he walked here on earth, and that he completely was obedient to God the father's will. You know, even in the Garden of Gethsemane, sounds like he sheds tears and, you know, he prays. And then, you know, he says, let not my will, but yours be done. And but, I mean, that's the great thing. It's, you know, their wills are aligned.

So but it's his perfect obedience to to god. So and I think that this is where we get, a double imputation. And I I won't go too deep into it, but double imputation basically is this, that he who knew no sin became sin that we might become the righteousness of God. So our sin is transferred to Christ. Mhmm.

He bears our sin, and he gives us his righteousness. So there's that transference there. And so that's why, you know, and I I've you know, I've mentioned this before. Warfield kinda touches on it, but, but salvation by works and it's like, well, it's Christ's work. Mhmm.

So it's like we're still under a workspace system. It's just that Christ accomplished the work perfectly in his righteousness, that his righteousness is transferred to us on our account, you know, to our account. Love through action. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So I just wanted to, you know, briefly mention that. I I I it's crazy to me how much all of these doctrines touch one another. Mhmm. You know, they're all they're always interconnected, it seems.

Right. On so many levels too, which is just so great. Yeah. So in studying this, I definitely started to learn some new terms. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. And that I mean, that's the thing great thing about Christology is there's so much there. So there's this Latin term called, and I'm gonna butcher it, communicatio ideomatum or I'm looking at it. That sounds right. I mean, I feel like, you know, it's something from John Wick, excommunicada.

There you go. Okay. So it's a Christological concept about the interaction of deity and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. From what I gather that I don't think this is this is explicit to a specific denomination. I think what it's saying is that this is how each it would be how Lutherans understand the divinity in humanity of Christ.

Mhmm. How the reformed understand it. How the Roman Catholic understand it. So it's about the communication of properties or attributes. Mhmm.

So you can say that God suffered even though deity doesn't really suffer, but his humanity suffered. The transference of of that. Yeah. From from humanity to deity. See and see, I'm that's where I'm kind of, like, trying to pick up on is whether or not it's the transference or whether or not it's the attribution Mhmm.

Of because of the 2 natures being connected. And the reason why I say that and I'm really curious to get your thoughts on this. But going through his humanity and his divinity, So the Chalcedonian definition, and I'll I'll probably end up reading that. I know it's lengthy, but I think it's worth noting. Yeah.

But, for example, have you ever heard of Mary being called the Theotokos? That's a new one to me. Okay. So it's I think it was I I don't remember if it was the Council of Ephesus. I I'm not entirely sure where it was at, but basically, it was a term that was brought about and kind of if I had to take a guess, probably somewhere between the 6 and 8 100.

Okay. But, basically, it was a definition or a term rather that they gave to Mary, you know, the mother of Christ. Mhmm. And so basically, it means god bearer. And and I think that that's where you get some of the confusion or I think it can be a misleading term, not that I have any issue with the term itself.

And the reason why I say that is because I think some people can take it to mean like, in your mind, when you think of the mother of God, you would think of God himself, like, as in his as in his being, as in his substance. Right. So you would think that in some way, I could see how some people think it might imply that she had something to do with his with his divinity. Mhmm. And that's not true.

It's just that she gave birth to God the son in his flesh Right. And his flesh was united to his divinity. Mhmm. So there's a distinction there, and I I think it's and I don't wanna undervalue Mary. I do think that there maybe are certain Protestant denominations that that might in me as a Protestant myself.

You know, like, I do think that there's sometimes extremes. But I think that that's why you kind of see and, you know, I think you maybe see it a little bit more prevalent in South American countries where it almost seems like there's this deification of very. Yeah. And I wonder if it has a little bit to do with kind of that term and kind of that, that understanding or that, misunderstanding, I guess, about her role Mhmm. In who Christ is.

Yeah. I mean, for me, when I see that, just culturally, I see it as a celebration of the entry point. Right? So that's that's where he came to Earth in order for this all to start. Yeah.

So having that power to be able to provide access to this world. I think maybe that maybe that's one of the one of the more important parts of that as well. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's definitely it's an area I would like to dive deeper more into because there's a lot to a lot to be said and a lot to kind of unpack when it comes to who she was and and some of the attributes that are ascribed to her.

Mhmm. You know, such as whether or not she was a virgin the rest of her life, whether or not she was completely sinless or free from original sin versus actual sin. Mhmm. But yeah. There's a lot there.

But so hopping over to, George, I guess I should say rather continuing on his human nature. So there's a couple of points too I'd like to bring up before I read the Chalcedonian definition. It's that, so Christ in his human nature, he thirsted and hungered. And as we understand that that deity doesn't do that. Right.

God and his, he doesn't get hungry. He doesn't get thirsty. Right. That's not that's not something that is ascribable to him. Same thing with his divinity.

His divinity is omnipresent. So that means, you know, everywhere at once. There's also the term, ubiquity. I think ubiquity is another term for omnipresence. But basically, his human nature retains its attributes.

So his human nature cannot be everywhere at once. I'm just trying to think through through this because it's it's a lot to think about. That that's a mind melter right there. Right? Yeah.

Yeah. Because if you think about it, well, you're not trying to limit his deity because his deity is omnipresent. Mhmm. Or, you know, him being God, God is omnipresent. But Christ in his person, since he's both united to his, you know, human nature and a divine nature.

And this is where the Chalcedonian definition comes in handy and kinda gives us some guardrails. So I'll just read it here, and then we'll, we'll kinda discuss it. So following then the holy fathers, we all unanimously teach that our lord Jesus Christ is to us 1 in the same son. The self same perfect in godhood god I'm sorry. The self same perfect in godhead, The self same perfect in manhood.

Truly God and truly man. The self same of a rational soul and body. Coessential with the father according to the godhead, the selfsame coessential with us according to the manhood, like us in all thing all things, sin apart, before the ages, begotten of the father as to the godhead. But in the last days, the self same for us and for our salvation, born of the, born of the Virgin Mary, Theotokos, as to the manhood. 1 in the same Christ, son, lord, only begotten, acknowledged in 2 natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably, the differences of the natures being in no way removed because of the union.

But rather, the properties of each nature being preserved and both concurring into 1 person and 1 hypostasis. Not as though he was parted or divided into 2 persons, but one in the self same Son and only begotten God, word, Lord Jesus Christ. Even as from the beginning, the prophets have taught concerning him, and as the lord Jesus Christ himself have taught us, and as a symbol of the fathers, have handed down to us. Okay. The area I really wanna focus on is that but rather the properties of both natures oh, I'm sorry.

The properties of each nature being preserved. Mhmm. And I think that that is where So if we go back, I I said transferring. Right? The feelings from one another.

It's it's maybe transference isn't the right word. It's just it's the experience. And through the experience of 1, it becomes the experience of all. Right? So Yeah.

And I so when Christ after his crucifixion and he's resurrected and has like a glorified body, I guess the question then becomes, are there any attributes that can be ascribed to him once his resurrection takes place? Because, obviously, if he died, you know, and then he defeats death, And then he has he he's immortal, which I I think that that is a huge part of and this is something I think that as human beings, we fear the most. I don't know if we fear nonexistence the most or if we fear, like because as human beings, we all fear death. Right. And I feel like that in Christianity, an answer is given to us about the resurrection.

Mhmm. And so that shows the importance of the body. This is kinda where I'll touch on annihilationism a little bit, and then we'll hop back to the Chalcedonian definition. But so as I was kind of studying on this, annihilationism is basically where, Christians that believe or maybe non Christians that believe that once a person dies, if they're not a believer, they basically cease to exist. So there's no afterlife for them.

There's no hell. There's no punishment. I guess the punishment itself is non existence. You don't have any consciousness anymore. You're just gone.

Right. Which is more of an if you think about it, I mean, that's probably more of an atheistic view. Most definitely. Yeah. Because that's what they would have to believe because there's nothing else after this world.

They don't believe in having a soul. Right. So with annihilationism, I I did find it interesting to learn about it just because Christ does say, I give eternal life to my sheep. Mhmm. And so the question is is, well, if that's what he gives the elect or his sheep, then what has given the wicked?

Is it and it I think, is it eternal death? Because, you know, I believe in hell. Mhmm. And I definitely believe it's a real place. Mhmm.

But, I did find that kind of topic just kinda fascinating because it's actually, I think, more of the I think it, don't quote me on this, but I think it might be Jehovah's Witnesses that believe in annihilationism. I don't think they're the only ones. Mhmm. This is where that John Stott guy I mentioned, that theologian. He believed it, and I think he might have been evangelical.

Mhmm. So what are your what are your thoughts on that? Is that the first time you've heard of that? Or So I've definitely thought of that but didn't know the term. So Okay.

I mean, if you look back in your life, there's a point in your life where you don't have memories. Right? And just trying to come to terms with life before or after that is just kind of a weird thing to kind of think of. So to think of perpetual nonexistence is just a whole another whole another thing to contemplate. And as a nonbeliever, is that an easier out than hell?

You know? Yeah. I I guess yeah. I mean, both sound terrible. Yeah.

I know. Right? I mean, I guess it's yeah. I mean, eternal punishment to me sounds worse because Right. You're obviously aware of it.

You're being punished and you're aware of the torment. Mhmm. So, yeah, it's just it's just kind of a crazy crazy thought to think about, like, you know, and, yeah, I do believe that Christ does speak on hell. And I do think that I think a lot of times people don't think about our sinfulness. And, I mean, I think that that that all just more brings to light, his love because it's like, well, he didn't he didn't have to save any of us.

He could save none of us. Right. And, so it's like when you really truly think about, our own sinfulness when you look inwardly, it it does still amaze me. I think that this is a a Spurgeon quote comes to mind where he talks about how and I know that he's not the only theologian that's kinda made a similar statement. But basically that, you know, when people have trouble understanding why god hated Esau, And he's like, well, I don't have trouble with understanding why God hated Esau.

I have trouble understanding why God loved Jacob. Right. And I think that that's kinda a good way to put it. Mhmm. But, going back to the the Chalcedonian definition, I think it it is it gets confusing very quickly about how we attribute some of these things like the, you know, is it correct to say that God himself is sorrowful when that's an attribute of humanity?

Right. Same thing with Christ and his humanity. Can we say it is has ubiquity when that's an attribute of divinity? And so I you get into a whole slew of questions there because you have the Lord's supper being one of them with the Eucharist, obviously. You know, that's a lot to think about because there's, you know, a lot of denominations that believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist Mhmm.

Literally. Right. And so that would so that would be his actual body, soul, human you know, everything. So there's just a lot of questions that arise to this. And obviously, you know, I'm not picking trying to pick on Roman Catholics here because I mean, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, you know, they all believe some form of real presence.

And I'll probably have a separate episode about the Eucharist because I think that that's a fascinating topic and it's kinda crazy that, you know, how many different interpretations that that Christian denominations have of that subject. Oh, yeah. Of that sacrament. Mhmm. So but, did you have anything else you wanted to touch on?

Yeah. I I think one other thing I wanted to touch base on is just from the BB Warfield book too. Yeah. He said in there that he had to get to the point of extreme, you know, divine anger in order to be able to be merciful. Right?

And it's the difference between tolerance and mercy. So being able to fully understand the the the reasons behind the emotions. If if Jesus didn't wasn't able to experience that, he the we wouldn't have known that he was being merciful. It would have it could have just been tolerant of of behavior. Right?

So just being able to understand the extremes and understanding that it's not just Jesus experiencing that, but God as well. So through Jesus' experience, we know that God's provide going to provide us mercy as well. So I think that's that's something that's powerful that's related to this. Yeah. Totally agree.

His compassion and his mercy is something that definitely stands out in his life and and his expressed emotions. Mhmm. Because there's so many times that people come up to him and, you know, they might not deserve compassion and that he has compassion on them like like the adulterer that, you know, was gonna be stoned. Mhmm. You know, he could have chosen to do nothing.

Mhmm. But instead that, you know, he didn't stop them with violence. He stopped them with his words. It's kinda crazy that he had that power. And, but just being able to show that compassion, to sinners, you know, and that's what he says.

You know, I have not come to save the righteous. You know, it's not the it's not the well that are in need of a of a physician, but the sick. Right. So but, I did wanna end on, this quote from it's a Warfield quote, and I think you'll like it. And so he says about, the glory of the incarnation is that it presents to our adoring gaze not a humanized god or a deified man, but a true god man.

Mhmm. I think he accurately captures both natures perfectly united. He's not a man that became god. So he's not a deified man, and he's not a humanized God, but a true God man. So That's powerful.

It is. Right? But, yeah, I I wanna wanna thank our listeners, and I wanna thank you for joining me today. It's it's was a good conversation. Hopefully, it wasn't, you know, hopefully, it wasn't too all over the place, but there's there's a lot of meat there to go through.

Yeah. There's a lot to unpack there, and I'll for sure be reading the bible a little bit differently just thinking about this conversation. So Yeah. I appreciate you having me on here. It's been great to talk to you about all of this today.

Yeah. Totally agree. Thanks. We'll we'll have to have you on again. That'd be great.

Primary Scriptural References:

• Daniel 7:13–14 – Vision of “one like a son of man” receiving everlasting dominion.

• Ezekiel (multiple references) – “Son of man” used as a designation for the prophet.

• Mark 2:10 – “The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”

• Mark 8:31 – The Son of Man must suffer, be rejected, and rise again.

• Matthew 24:30 – The Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and great glory.

• Matthew 25:31–46 – The Son of Man judging the nations.

• Luke 22:69 – “From now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

• Psalm 110:1 – “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand…’”

• Revelation 1:13–16 – John’s vision of the glorified Son of Man among the lampstands.

Theological Topics:

• Christology – Dual nature of Christ as both fully God and fully man.

• Eschatology – The Son of Man’s role in judgment and return.

• Messianic expectation – Jesus reinterprets kingship through suffering and resurrection.

• Apocalyptic literature – Daniel and Revelation as interpretive lenses.

Historical Confessions/Creeds Referenced:

• The Nicene Creed – “And He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead.”

• Chalcedonian Definition – On Christ's full humanity and full divinity.

1. What does the title “Son of Man” mean in Scripture?

   In this episode, Zechariah and Zach explore how the title “Son of Man” carries deep biblical significance. In Ezekiel, the phrase highlights human weakness, as God repeatedly uses it to address the prophet. But in Daniel 7:13–14, the title takes on an entirely different tone. There, "one like a son of man" is seen coming with the clouds of heaven and is given authority, glory, and an everlasting kingdom. Zechariah explains that this vision lays the foundation for how Jesus uses the title, revealing His divine authority and eternal nature.

2. Why did Jesus so often refer to Himself as the Son of Man?

   The episode points out that “Son of Man” was Jesus’ preferred way of describing Himself. Zechariah explains that it served a dual purpose. It could fly under the radar to avoid immediate accusations, yet at the same time, it carried deep messianic and divine implications. Jesus used it to speak about forgiving sins (Mark 2:10), predicting His suffering (Mark 8:31), announcing His role as judge (Matthew 25:31), and describing His return in glory (Matthew 24:30). The title reflects both His earthly humility and His heavenly authority.

3. How did the title “Son of Man” lead to conflict during Jesus’ trial?

   Zechariah and Zach describe how Jesus' use of this title during His trial before the Sanhedrin played a critical role in the events leading to the crucifixion. When Jesus referenced Daniel 7 and Psalm 110, saying the Son of Man would be seated at God's right hand and come with the clouds, the high priest responded by tearing his robes. That reaction showed he understood Jesus was claiming divine authority. This bold declaration became a key moment in sealing the decision to put Him to death.

4. What does the Son of Man reveal about Jesus' suffering and exaltation?

   This episode emphasizes how Jesus redefines power and kingship. Zechariah points out that the Son of Man is not just a figure of glory, but also of suffering. Jesus shows that the path to exaltation runs through humility, rejection, and the cross. His kingdom begins not with a political takeover but with sacrifice. As Luke 24:26 says, the Son of Man had to suffer before entering His glory. This view reshapes our understanding of messianic victory.

5. How does the “Son of Man” title shape Christian theology?

   Zechariah and Zach explain that this title touches on many key doctrines. It reinforces Christ’s full humanity and divinity, His role in judgment, and His future return. The language also connects to apocalyptic literature in Daniel and Revelation, giving the title prophetic weight. Jesus redefines what it means to be King, not through worldly power, but through death and resurrection.

6. Why is “Son of Man” considered Jesus’ most complete self-description?

   The episode concludes that “Son of Man” captures the full scope of who Jesus is. Zechariah describes it as a title that brings together incarnation, mission, suffering, glory, and divine authority. Far from being a lesser or vague term, it invites us to reflect on the mystery of the one who is truly human and truly divine, the one who walks with us and rules over all things.

• "The Divine Son of Man" by Stephen P. Need – A deeper dive into the biblical theology behind the phrase.

• "Jesus and the Victory of God" by N.T. Wright – Explores Jesus’ use of the title within Second Temple Judaism.

• "Daniel: The NIV Application Commentary" by Tremper Longman III – Helpful on the apocalyptic visions in Daniel 7.