The Use of the Title 'Son of Man' by Jesus (Cont'd)

                                                           It is generally accepted that only God can forgive sins as they are offences committed against Him by rational creatures like angels and human beings. If, therefore, sins are to be forgiven it has to come from God alone and the Jews of Jesus' time considered it a blasphemy when Jesus addressed the paralytic carried on a cot by four men thus: "My son, your sins are forgiven" (Mark, 2: 5). The Jews understood it as a blasphemy since it was playing God by a man like Jesus and the power of delegation of authority seems to have been ignored by them although it was not something unknown to them. The prophets, kings and priests were always believed to be acting in the name of God and even the forgiveness of sins through temple sacrifices and prayers by the priests were very much a part of their religion. Why did they, then, feel disgruntled in the case of Jesus as the concept was not anything unusual? There were two main reasons for their ill feelings towards Jesus especially from the part of the authorities who could easily influence the masses. The first reason was that Jesus was never inducted into the circle of official authority comprising kings, priests and prophets who were appointed by God Himself. This was the underlying reason the Jewish authorities wanted to know on whose authority Jesus took upon himself the task of cleansing the Jerusalem Temple (Mark, 11: 28). The second reason was the air of authority exuded from Jesus unknown to any other authority in both his teachings and actions that astounded the people( Matthew, 7: 28). This was in spite of the fact that Jesus had no formal training unlike the Jewish teachers (John, 7: 15), a prime example of whom was Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Council, in his spiritual encounter with Jesus (John, 3: 1-15). Moreover, even the Pharisees could not answer the question put forward by Jesus about the Messiah being the son of David although he is addressed by David as his Lord (Matthew, 22: 41-46). When the Pharisees were embarrassed by their inability to answer such a vital question, the huge crowd that attended on Jesus heard him gladly (Mark, 12: 37).  
                                                                Although it is a prerogative of God alone to forgive sins, as this authority could be delegated to His representatives the presence of such authority is not by itself proof of a person's divinity. Jesus himself invested the Apostles and through them the Church with the authority to forgive sins of men and women, which does not imply the bearers of such authority are equal to God. Jesus, however, referred to the privileged position of the Son of Man to forgive sins indirectly identifying himself as both God and man. He proved it by means of the miraculous cure of the paralytic who was asked to get up, carry his bed and go home signifying that his words were effective also in forgiving sins. A miracle was needed at that time to establish the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins , usually reserved to God alone, which need not be the case for later generations. This means that those who forgive sins in the Church need not perform any miracles to substantiate their credibility in forgiving sins, the reason being that what is required at the foundation need not be repeated again and again for orderly growth. Besides, no claim is made by those who have the delegated authority to forgive sins that they are equal to God. Moreover, when sins are forgiven in the Church through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, it is Christ himself who forgives them. The Son of Man stands as the cornerstone of the foundation laid on the Apostles and Prophets from where the Church grows a s a beautiful Temple of God (Ephesians, 2: 20). This unique position of Jesus Christ cannot be delegated or duplicated and therefore no miracle is required by everyone who has authority to forgive sins in the name of God as a proof of such authority.
                                                             Another outlandish claim, in the eyes of the Jews, made by Jesus was that he could change the rules concerning the observance of the Sabbath as he himself was the Lord of the Sabbath in his capacity as Son of Man. Anyone who knew the Law of Moses could never agree with this claim as it was prescribed by God Himself for all generations to come. After working for six days, the Jews had to keep the seventh day holy as it was the Sabbath of the Lord their God. It was applicable to their sons and daughters, slaves and even animals because the Lord Himself rested from all work after creating everything in six days blessing the Sabbath and declaring it holy ( Exodus, 20: 10-11; 23:12; Deuteronomy, 5: 14). Apparently this holy Law was violated by the Apostles by plucking corns and eating them while passing through a cornfield in the company of Jesus (Luke, 6: 1-5). Some Pharisees objected and asked why they were doing what was forbidden on the Sabbath. If we read the parallel passages in Mark and Matthew, it would not be immediately clear what was forbidden in the act as they did not reproduce all the points touched upon in the Law. Deuteronomy 23: 25 says: " When you go into another man's standing corn, you may pluck ears to rub in your hands, but you may not put a sickle to his standing corn". Luke, on the other hand, was careful to note the detail that the Apostles plucked the corn and rubbed them in their hands before eating them. That was in agreement with the injunction in Deuteronomy 23:25. It was a mere rule of conduct an Israelite should follow along with many other instructions for a just and honest life and yet for the Pharisees it constituted work forbidden on the Sabbath. In his retort to the notion of Sabbath held by the Pharisees, Jesus resorted to two instances, one from the past and another from the present, for vindicating the action of the Apostles. He took the stand that what the Apostles did was no violation of the Sabbath considering what David did in the past and the priests in the Temple do in the present without violating the Sabbath (Matthew, 12: 3-5).
                                                       Jesus added two very important points by saying that there was something greater than the Temple there and that they should learn the meaning of the injunction: "I require mercy, not sacrifice" whereby they could have abstained from condemning the innocent. The underlying reason for the upsetting of their values is in the fact that the Son of Man is Lord of even the Sabbath (Matthew, 12: 6-8). Another fundamental reason for the innocence of the Apostles, although apparently they did something forbidden on the Sabbath, was that the Sabbath was made for the sake of man and not man for the Sabbath (Mark, 2: 27). That God Himself rested from work on the Sabbath day was given as the reason for keeping the Sabbath holy and yet the reason for Jesus' healing work on the Sabbath was because his own Father never ceased working (John, 5:17). There is no contradiction here as the work of creation in six days, as the foundation of everything else, was something not required to be repeated, whereas God is always at work in creating, protecting and governing the world. The rest from work of God as understood by the Old Testament writers in its true spirit and the unceasing work of God declared by Jesus in the New Testament  are not contradictory, but complementary.        
                                                        The ultimate reason for the Son of Man being the Lord of the Sabbath is the unquestionable dignity of man entrusted to him by  God Himself  (Mark, 2: 27-28) on the basis of the fact that the Son of Man himself is both God and Man. It also means that without the Son of Man standing up for our cause , we are doomed, bereft of all dignity, to self-destruction. No human being is able to be saved from the continuous and ever looming threats against humanity without the aid of the Son of Man who has laid a solid foundation for the well-being of humanity. Various kinds of human laws as well as interpretations of divine laws stand as one set of the many obstacles challenging human freedom and wholeness recognized as inalienable to human dignity by Jesus Christ. He did not mean to abolish any law, but only wanted to see them in their proper perspectives aiding human integrity and soundness in the presence of God. The same principle of accepting the given culture , laws, mores and customs of peoples as long as they do not infringe on the dignity of the humans should be the guiding principle for the Church, which professes to represent Jesus Christ, in bearing witness to her Lord. We shall see in the next Posts how the Son of Man achieved the Herculean task of rescuing human dignity from forces bent upon dragging men and women to their own destruction by fortifying the human spirit with pearls of wisdom unavailable in the world. (To be cont'd).       

The Use of the Title 'Son of Man' by Jesus

                                                           Since the meaning of words is their use in language, it is extremely important to place in context the title 'Son of Man' used by Jesus so that we arrive at the meaning intended by him. For this purpose, we shall try to analyse the language used by the Apostles and the Evangelists who have transmitted to us what Jesus said and did about the title. The meaning intended by Jesus through the title is to be seen in the intention of the Evangelists and the writers of the New Testament when they used the title as having application to Jesus. It is, therefore, enough to grasp the intention of the New Testament writers in each context of its use for ascertaining the meaning intended by Jesus. The justification for this substitution of Jesus' intention with that of the writers is to be seen in the fact that they are the authoritative witnesses of what happened and reported by them, besides the fact that they are inspired by God to write without deflecting from His intention of what He wanted to communicate. This means that what we are able to extract from the authors of the New Testament is what we can know of the meaning of the title used by Jesus. We shall, therefore, try to see below how Jesus understood the title 'Son of Man' as applied to his own self in different situations.
                                                        We have an interesting episode recorded by John the Evangelist (John, 1: 43-51) where Philip introduces Nathaniel to Jesus. Nathaniel was skeptical about anything good coming out of Nazareth when told that they have met the man spoken of in the Law and by the prophets, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. On the invitation by Philip, Nathaniel approached Jesus who made an observation about his inner spiritual state by declaring that there was a true Israelite worthy of the name in whom there was nothing false. Nathaniel wanted to know the source of Jesus' knowledge about him to which another enigmatic reply was given by Jesus. It was enigmatic for everyone except for Jesus and Nathaniel who immediately proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God and the king of Israel. The reply of Jesus that he saw Nathaniel under the fig tree before Philip spoke to him as the source of his intimate knowledge of Nathaniel turned a skeptic into a believer. There have been innumerable interpretations of the passage about what Jesus saw under the fig tree and yet we shall not accept any of them. The reason for our refusal to accept any such interpretation is to be seen in the whole thrust of the passage that leads to the further revelation by Jesus of the Son of Man. The incident under the fig tree referred to by Jesus had no relevance to any one else and was meant to be a secret as per the intention of the author. Something that could be known by everyone would not have evoked such a spontaneous and sudden response from a skeptic and turned him into a believer, Besides, it is not necessary to go looking for what Jesus meant here as it was used only for shaking Nathaniel out of his lethargy leading him and others to greater things. "Then he added, 'In truth, in very truth I tell you all, you shall see heaven wide open , and God's angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man'" (John, 1: 51).It is clear from Jesus' own words that the Son of Man is greater than the Messiah in whom Nathaniel professed his faith where the 'Son of God' did not mean anything more than the Messiah. Even the angels have to go through the Son of Man as the only mediator for approaching God. This would be clear to us when the heaven is wide open and that would be possible only when the Son of Man enters the Holy of Holies with his glorified body that would serve as the veil revealing and concealing the face of the Father. According to Jesus, what is going to happen in the future is already relevant in the present when the Son of Man is encountered to understand whom both his past and future must be kept in mind. This was the reason why Jesus explained to Nathaniel what he would be later seeing about the Son of Man compared to which his profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah was nothing special.
                                                        The previous Posts discussed the title 'Son of God' as applied to Jesus Christ and here we shall only mention that it is the basis of the title 'Son of Man' properly understood. Although the title could stand for any man or mankind in general in its previous history, as used by Jesus it has taken a complete new turn involving his title 'Son of God' whereby it could properly be used only for Jesus Christ. He did not arrogate the title to himself without any justification, since Jesus did for the entire human race things which only God could do, as we shall see in the coming Posts through our discussion of the other aspects of the title. The first chapter of the Gospel according to John lays the foundation for the entire Gospel where the pre-existence of the Son as Word of God , the mission of the Son of Man and the destiny of the Lamb of God are succinctly expressed.This first chapter being the introduction of the Gospel, a proper understanding of it is essential for a grasp of the entire Gospel and the intention of the author in various contexts. The title 'Son of Man' also explains how the Son of God could turn out to be the Lamb of God in perpetual oblation to God. In Mark 14: 62 we have the High Priest questioning Jesus about his true identity challenging him to answer whether he is the Messiah, Son of the blessed One. Without denying the implications contained in the High Priest's query, Jesus tried to take him to another higher level with the introduction of the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven. The High Priest considered it a blasphemy, which implies that the claim of Jesus was actually a claim for his equality with God. The title 'Son of Man' as applied by Jesus to himself contained the mystery of both his divinity and his humanity with a tilt to the role played by him as a servant of humanity. (To be cont'd).  .           

The Humanity of Jesus Christ Expressed under the Title 'The Son of Man'

                                                           This was the title most preferred by Jesus to refer to himself and it reveals a wealth of information about his identity that is not evident from any other title, including the one of 'Son of God'. The reason for this assessment is the fact that in the plan of salvation God devised from before the beginning of the world, the sacrifice of the Son for humanity was in the mind of God whereby he was properly to be called the Son of Man. The Messiah was eagerly awaited by the Jews and the Son of Man is hopefully awaited by the believers for his second coming. Just as most of the Jews failed to recognize him when he actually came, could it be that we miss his Second Coming because of our false notions of the Son of Man? Since the Second Coming would be in glory encompassing the whole world, unlike his Incarnation, no one would fail to notice it on a phenomenal level. However, only those who are attuned to the ways of the Son of Man would be able to enjoy his presence as the ultimate savior. We shall, therefore, attempt to delineate from the Scriptures certain perspectives about the Son of Man that should assist us to be prepared for his Second Coming. We shall just give a quick overview of the use of 'Son of Man' in both the Old and the New Testaments before proceeding to the use by Jesus to refer the title to his own self. In the later Posts, we shall discuss the relevance of the Son of Man in the present world that is torn apart by scientific and technological progress on the one hand and utter poverty, illiteracy, superstitions, terrorism, ethnic conflicts and wars, etc., on the other.
                                                          According to the interpretation of the Jews, the title 'Son of Man' in the Old Testament stood for man in general, meaning humanity as such, without referring to any individual. For example, Numbers, 23: 19 uses it in this sense showing the characteristics of God and man or son of man to be completely opposed to each other. It is used especially with a view to highlighting the weakness and frailty of man before God as we have in Job,25: 6; Psalms, 8: 4, 144: 3; Isiah 51: 12, etc. We have this title used in the Book of Ezekiel 93 times mostly to remind the prophet about his weakness and nothingness before God. The uses made in different Books of the Old Testament have various nuances in Hebrew not taken into consideration by translators as we see from 'Ben Adam' of Job 25 and 'Ben Enosh' of Psalm 144. In many cases in the Old Testament, 'Son of Man' parallels the Acadian 'ameluti' meaning 'mankind'. The classical text influencing the use of the title in the New Testament is seen in Daniel, 7: 13-14 the imagery of which was made use of by Jesus to refer to his Divinity and Second Coming. The vision of Daniel about the Son of Man with power and glory was apt enough to explain the status of the Son of Man in his Second Coming and it was used by Jesus to elucidate his future role.    
                                                            The title 'Son of Man' is used in the New Testament 87 times by Jesus to refer to his own self and it is never used by his disciples. The only probable exception is in Acts 7: 56 where Stephen declared just before he was stoned to death: " I can see the Son of Man standing at God's right hand!" It agrees very well with the understanding of Jesus about himself as Son of Man that has an application beyond the confines of this world. The unmistakable similarity between the death of Jesus and that of Stephen is highlighted by Luke from the fact that both entrusted their spirits to the Lord God in the case of Jesus and the Lord Jesus in the case of Stephen. Besides, both Jesus and Stephen prayed for those who executed them so that the Lord may not hold their sin against them committed out of ignorance. Thus Stephen was presented by Luke as most suitable to have the vision of the Son of Man with whom he was thoroughly identified. Why Stephen alone was granted this vision when there were Apostles and disciples who followed closely in the footsteps of Jesus and were identified with the Son of Man may be understood as follows. Being the very first martyr for faith in Jesus Christ, Stephen's vision was a need of the hour for the faithful to be strengthened in their faith and that too in the everlasting form of the Son of Man. It is, therefore, not necessary to have the same kind of vision by everyone who is identified with Jesus through their life, according to the principle of the economy of salvation.    
                                                         Before discussing in some detail the use of the title by Jesus, we may note here how it was generally understood in the New Testament. If we look at the title as specifically applied to Jesus, we can see that it contained in its use the weight of both his divinity and his humanity. We may examine here just one instance where the title 'Son of Man' conveys meaning beyond the ordinary use of it by anyone till then. The instance is narrated by Matthew in 26: 63-64 where the Chief Priest solemnly admonishes Jesus in the name of the living God to tell them whether he was the Messiah  the Son of God. Jesus did not reply him with a simple'yes' or 'no', although that was the kind of reply we are instructed to give to any question, but referred to what was going to happen in the future with a reference to the glory of the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God. The reason why Jesus deflected from his own instruction to reply directly to any question, branding any other mode as coming from the Evil One is that the question here referred to ultimate realities the answer to which could be verified as true only in the Last Judgement.  
                                                         As a preparation for considering the use made by Jesus of the title, it would be appropriate to place the question in perspective. For this purpose we shall keep in mind the chapter 5 of Paul's Letter to the Romans. Paul discusses in this chapter the contrast between Adam and Jesus Christ in as far as they contributed to the plan of salvation devised by God. Sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience of God's command and through sin death pervaded the whole human race. "But God's act of grace is out of all proportion to Adam's wrongdoing. For if the wrongdoing of that one man brought death upon so many, its effect is vastly exceeded by the grace of God and the gift that came to so many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ (Romans, 5:15). What we must keep in mind in this context is that while the effect of sin of the first Adam is very active and visible in the world even now, the effect of the grace brought by the second Adam, Jesus Christ, seems to subdued and invisible. This being the case, how can we claim as Paul does that the second Adam's act is far stronger and effective than the sin introduced into the world by the first Adam? The answer to this dilemma is to be seen in the reality and role of the Son of Man in the sense that once we grasp the same the way Jesus applied it to his own self, we should be able to see what Paul meant to convey to us  It is, therefore, essential to look at the title 'Son of Man' the way Jesus did in his discourses and teaching as well as in his very life, death, glorification and his expected second coming.       

The Present Use of the Title 'Son of God' (Cont'd)

                                                           How should we express the truth through our lives that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Although the Word of God was the Son of God even before the beginning of the world, as Jesus Christ he was declared Son of God through his resurrection from the dead (Romans, 1: 3-4). In the history of salvation God fixed certain points in time to insert His plan of salvation into history like the Incarnation, death and glorification etc. of Jesus Christ. What we need to do is to insert ourselves into this stream of action initiated and sustained by God through His Son that is achieved by our faith in Jesus Christ and reception of the Holy Spirit. We are initiated into divine life and sustained by the Sacraments within the community of faith called the Church whereby we become the people of God. However, other people are not excluded from God's love and reception of His Spirit provided they fear God and do what is right in His sight as there is no partiality in God (Acts, 10:34-35). If this is the necessary and sufficient condition for everyone to be accepted by God, how can the baptized be found wanting in them and still hope to be saved? A member of the Church is, therefore, called to manifest the Son of God in one's own life by following Jesus Christ that cannot be done without self-denial and carrying one's daily cross (Mark, 8:34). By inserting these essential conditions into our daily lives, we at the same time proclaim the Gospel of Christ that is essentially identified with Jesus Christ himself. This is how our faith would not be a dead one, but a living one throbbing with divine life expressed in our attitudes as children of God  We are thus sons and daughters of God by adoption in virtue of the merits of the natural Son of God, Jesus Christ.  
                                                         Some might misunderstand us as having denied all relevance of devotions, devotionals, prayers to saints, prayers of mediation through Mary, Mother of God, and Holy Hour before the Blessed Sacrament etc. This is not actually the case. What we object to is the commercialization of devotions for monetary gains, keeping the people in ignorance misleading the gullible into superstitious practices by those very people appointed by God to lead them into living waters. They do it by extolling Mary independently of Jesus Christ without whom she could not even be saved, changing the nature of the Holy Eucharist by devotions without proper explanations and guidance of perspectives to the believers etc. What is urgently needed is not the abolition of such practices, but instilling proper perspectives about them so that people are not swayed by the inessentials forgetting or being ignorant of the essentials of their faith. Let us just take an example from the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles where we see instances of true devotions without deviating from the true objects of faith. The woman with the hemorrhage of blood sincerely believed that if only she could at least touch the hem of Jesus' cloak, she would be cured of her malady. Similarly, during Peter's mission of preaching the Gospel people believed that their illness could be healed if only even the shadow of Peter were to fall on them These are instances of genuine devotions because their main attention was on the persons in whom they believed relegating the cloak and the shadow to the background as mere instruments. When the persons of our object of faith are supplanted by the instruments themselves as objects filled with power, we are led into superstitions.  Add monetary value in the process for having access to this power objectified in certain articles, we might say that we are practicing a kind of simony akin to the attempt of Simon Magus who wanted to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit from Simon Peter. The same may be said about selling blessings by priests on the occasions of birthdays, anniversaries, etc., of people with the tacit understanding that a contribution to the Church is expected. People are taxed for spiritual blessings to which they have a birth-right and therefore are not a favor rendered by the priests. It is the spirit of the Church from the beginning that we share our resources with the poor and the charities undertaken by the Church, but it should be voluntary for which the faithful should be trained. This kind of training can never take place where there is no atmosphere for the same , if people are compelled, expressly or tacitly, to contribute. The poor in the Church should not feel constrained to contribute beyond their capacity and it should be clear to all that their inability to do so should in no way be considered a reason for their inferiority.    
                                                             Another instance of a wrong sense of devotion is seen in the popular devotion to Mary in whose name even many Churches are dedicated where in some cases people are unconsciously swindled of their material possessions in return for spiritual gain. Thus the devotees are led to believe that they have doe their part in obtaining favors through the intercession of Mary instead of offering themselves to God through her intercession. People should be thoroughly instructed to honor Mary through honoring every woman as mother, sister, etc., so that her Son too is glorified through her devotees. The Church honors Mary as Mother of God since she bore Jesus and brought him into the world, suitably named 'Theotokos'  meaning that she is the bearer of God, officially so declared in the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in A. D. 431. Recent ecumenical discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East have come to an agreement asserting the equivalence of the expressions ' Mother of God' and 'Mother of Christ' of the Catholic tradition and 'Mother of Christ our God and Savior' of the Assyrian Church. It has also been decided that the latter Church was never affected by the heresy of Nestorians (Cf. Syriac Dialogue, I, Vienna, 1994, p. 230). As we noted above the official teaching of the Church on all these matters is faultless and yet the practical application of the same by the believers very often borders on superstition and ignorance. The concern of the Church in extolling Mary to such an exhalted position of the Mother of God is to uphold the Divinity of Jesus Christ without whom she is nothing special. When we honor Mary, we should be seen to be honoring her Son  who is the Son of God and God Himself in virtue of which she is the Mother of God.      
                                                         Here ends our discussion on the Divinity of Jesus Christ and in the next Posts we shall consider his humanity under the title 'The Son of Man' 

The Present Use of the Title 'Son of God'

                                                           In discussing the present use of the title 'Son of God', we must look at the actual life of the believers in Jesus Christ as the Son of God in order to cull out its real meaning from what they profess to believe. Ignoring the denominational differences, we shall concentrate on the mainline teaching of the Churches on the subject. Here we must keep in mind the importance of education and training in correctly understanding concepts, including the revealed ones like that of the Holy Trinity, without which anyone may subscribe to wrong notions. This is evident from the absolute lack of knowledge in Islam about the sense in which the Holy Trinity is believed and adhered to by even the children in Christianity This is in spite of the fact that there is considerable agreement between Islam and Christianity about the fact that there can be only one God as well as agreements in many points of the Bible and the Koran. On the contrary, the Indian Thought has no qualms about the concept of a Trinity in God as Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu as they are but manifestations of  one and the same Absolute Reality. Therefore, the way religious principles are taught to children from the very beginning exerts an undeniable influence on them throughout their lives. This was the reason why Jesus prepared and commanded his disciples to teach everyone what he himself taught them and thus make disciples for him, which is the same as catching the humans by those who were used to catch fish.
                                                            The present use of the title 'Son of God' may be seen from the catechetical, liturgical and theological uses of it on the theoretical level and from the prayer life, devotionals and practical life of the faithful from the practical side. While it may be noted that on the theoretical level it is very well presented, on the practical side there is much to be desired. Let us take, as an example, the very important doctrine of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. It is theoretically very well presented for the believing Christians by the major Churches, and yet some representatives of those very same Churches succumb to the pressures from splinter groups to dilute or change the essential content of the doctrine.The real presence in the Eucharist means that the Son of God himself is present as the risen Christ under the guise (species)of bread and wine. The presence is both real and spiritual because Jesus Christ has become a living Spirit after his resurrection from the dead. There is no need of running around with the news of his physical presence in the form of physical flesh and blood as some preachers, who like theatrics, are wont to do. The reason  for our observation is that Jesus died once and for all on the cross and he cannot die again or shed his blood a second time as his body is in a glorified state, although it is the same physical body, but transformed by the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if someone claims to have real blood in the mouth on reception of the Holy Communion, it is certainly not the blood of Christ!! Or again, the appearance of the face of Jesus on the consecrated host that invites a mass hysteria, silently condoned even by Church dignitaries, should make us sit up and think about what kind of faith they so far had! For, we always believe that it is the same risen Lord Jesus Christ who is present and whom we receive in the form of bread and wine after they are consecrated by the priest in the Holy Mass. Even Padre Pio of Italy who seems to have had the marks of Jesus' crucifixion on his own body was quietly discouraged by the Church when he stared claiming to see the baby Jesus on the consecrated host during the Holy Masses he offered.  
                                                             If this is the case with even the very learned people in the Church, one can well imagine the situation when it comes to the ordinary believers! Add to this the devotions and devotionals proposed by the pastors and practiced by the people to get a glimpse of the standard of faith  actually present in the believing community. When God has prepared an expensive feast for His children through the mediation of Jesus Christ, we are forced to be satisfied with crumbs falling from the famished tables of certain gentlemen claiming to stand between God and His people. It is not that God has not appointed ambassadors of Christ but that some of them are governed by Mammon under the guise of leading people to salvation designed according to their own perverted notions. If we do not object to such deviations, we too become accomplices in their vices by our sins of omissions. The ultimate reason for our silence boils down to the fact that we want to save our lives, which actually destroys them in the process by the internal laws of life itself! (To be cont'd).       

The Church Usage of the Title 'Son of God'

                                                           Let us remember here the general principle that applies to every branch of knowledge that meaning of words derives from their use in sentences and in language as a whole. Given this premise, this Post and the next one shall treat the Church Usage and The Present Use of the title'Son of God'.
                                                           From its very beginning it was no smooth sailing for the Church to uphold the true doctrines on Jesus Christ, especially about his divinity and humanity. Already in the apostolic times we have instances of differing opinions as reflected in the Epistles of John , besides occasional hints in the Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of Paul. The references in 1 John 2: 22-23; 4: 2-3; 2 John 7 etc. point to the denial of Christ's divinity by some even during the life time of Apostle John. Later on the Ebonites, the Theodotians, the Artemonites and the Photinians etc. regarded Jesus Christ as a mere man. The Gnostic theory considered Christ as an emanation from the Divine Being . The Sabellians and the Patripassians  believed that Christ was a mere manifestation of God. Just as some denied the divinity of Jesus Christ , there were others who denied his humanity. The Docetist Marcion and the Priscillianists believed only in an apparent body of Jesus. The Valentinians believed that the body of Jesus was brought down from heaven. The followers of Apollinaris denied that Jesus had a human soul, the Word supplying the functions of the soul. All the above opinions have taken a different form in the modern tendency to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ faith.
                                                        All these versions of ideas about the identity of Jesus Christ were overshadowed by the bold assertion of Arius, an Alexandrian Presbyter, originally from Libya and educated at Antioch along with Eusebius of Caesarea, against whom his own bishop Alexander, the Patriarch of Alexandria, took up cudgels. Arius and his followers admitted that Christ was the Word incarnate, but was the first creature of God mediating between God and the world. This meant that the Word was not essentially identical with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This theory was taken up in the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in the year 325 A. D. where the exact relationship between the three persons in the Trinity was defined and is known as the Nicaean Confession of Faith recited in its essentials during the Holy Mass in the Church today. The Council took care to insist on the identity of substance between God and the Word whereby the begetting of the Son by the Father should be seen in the proper perspective. This was achieved by the Council's authoritative teaching that anyone who taught , like Arius, that the Son was not existent before his begetting by the Father was to stand condemned. Although the Greek word used (homoousios) for asserting the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was not in the Scriptures, the Fathers of the Council determined that it was in accordance with the faith of the Church from the very beginning. Athanasius, who later became Patriarch of Alexandria, was a deacon at the time of the Council assisting Alexander the Patriarch of Alexandria and was strongly opposed to the ideas of Arius. The faith of the Church could not be deciphered by a mechanical reading of the Bible and had to be understood from the way it was presented by the Fathers and the Ecclesiastical writers of the Church (called 'Tradition'). For it was they who were the living witnesses of the faith deriving from the Apostles expressed in writing in the New Testament responding to the actual situations of life. Meaning emerges from such uses actually engaged in by the community of believers. The Fathers of the Council made sure that there was nothing against the Bible in the new formulations of the faith and that they were in fact congruent to the teachings of the Bible. Further elaborations of the theme were achieved by the subsequent Ecumenical Councils, especially in the Councils of Chalcedon and the Fourth Lateran. Incidentally, nowadays the Jehovah's witnesses have fallen into the same error of Arius, may be out of their inadequate understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity!
                                                      Before ending this section on the Church usage of the title 'Son of God'. it may be worthwhile to note what Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor of the Church has to say on the subject. Thomas felt that people have understood in various ways what Jesus said in John 8: 42 about his proceeding from God. Some like Arius took it to mean as an effect proceeding from a cause. Thus the Son, according to him, proceeds from the Father as His primary creature and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as the creature of both. Sabellius understood procession to mean that the cause proceeded to the effect to impress its own likeness on it. Thus God the Father is called the Son in assuming flesh from the Virgin and is also called the Holy Spirit in sanctifying the rational creatures. Thomas refutes this kind of identification of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity by invoking John 5: 19 that says: "The Son cannot of himself do anything" and commenting that therefore Father is not the Son.
                                                     The fundamental refutation advanced by Thomas Aquinas of the above two opinions consists in his observation why they have gone wrong in their perception of this deep mystery. The reason for their mistaken views, according to Thomas,was because they took procession as an outward act instead of existing in God Himself. A comparison may be made with our conception of an object when we understand it where a procession of the intellect takes place signified by the spoken word. In the case of God, procession does not result in diversity. Rather what proceeds, the divine Word, is perfectly one with its Source like our intellect becoming one with the object understood. God, Who is the First Principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed. If we call the builder the principle of the house, in the idea of such a principle is included that of his art. Finally, we cannot know what God is, but only what He is not. Here we see that Thomas Aquinas is in complete agreement with the Indian Thought where the Absolute is not directly and positively known, but only through the method of negation ("Neti, Neti") of whatever is proposed as standing for God.         

The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (cont'd)

                                                           In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus draws a clear distinction between his relationship with the Father and that of his disciples. He always spoke of 'my Father' and never 'our Father' and the prayer 'Our Father' was to be used by the disciples. Jesus always gave very clear indications of his unique relationship with the Father as against that of all creatures. He meant to say that he was always one with the Father, although distinct by way of his relationship to the Father. Jesus taught the people to think about the identity of the Messiah by challenging the teachers of the Jewish Law to explain Psalm 110: 1 where David calls the Messiah both his son and Lord (Mark, 12: 35-37). Since David was inspired by the Holy Spirit in writing the Psalm, he could not possibly have made a mistake was the point on which the lawyers had to explain the text. If the Messiah was understood in the traditional sense, the explanation would remain unsatisfactory. This was so because the actual understanding of the identity and role of the Messiah was taken as a mere temporal inheritor of the kingdom of David by the Jews of the time. If the Messiah was taken as the eternal inheritor of the Kingdom of God of which the kingdom of David was a mere temporal phenomenon , it would be clear how the Messiah could also be the Lord of David. If the Messiah was to be taken as the Son of God Himself, everything would make sense whereby David could address him both as his son by way of physical descent and his Lord by way of spiritual relationship.We should keep in mind here that both the Gospels according to Mark and Matthew were intent on establishing the point that Jesus was the expected Messiah and therefore when they use the title 'Son of God', it need not mean anything more than the Messiah. The declaration of Mark at the very beginning of his Gospel that Jesus is the Son of God (omitted by some witnesses) need not mean anything more than the expected Messiah. It does not mean that Mark and Matthew did not believe in Jesus as the real Son of God. It was a methodological device by the first two Gospels to introduce the phenomenon of Jesus in familiar and more readily acceptable terms to both the Jews and the Gentiles of the period. This point was taken up by both Luke and John in their Gospels clarifying that the actual Messiah appearing in the person of Jesus Christ was at the same time the very Son of God. The question of the High Priest at the Sanhedrin trial about the Messiah and the Son of the Blessed One was answered by Jesus by reference to the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven (Mark 14: 62). The answer was a clear reference to Psalm 110: 1 and Daniel 7: 13 both alluding to the Messiah who was expected by the Jews and much more than the Messiah in its actual realization in Jesus, the Son of God. Its actual realization in him is hinted at by Jesus with his reference to the Son of Man  in his answer to the Chief Priest.      
                                                          The claims made by Jesus about his own identity could not be contained under the mere notion of 'the Messiah', although Matthew's preoccupation was to prove that Jesus was the expected Messiah (Matthew, 7: 21-23; 10: 32; 11: 25-30; 28: 18-20 etc.). Notwithstanding passages in Luke clearly testifying to the special relationship of Jesus to God as his Father (Luke, 2: 49;10: 21-22, etc.), we shall pay special attention to two passages (Luke, 1:32-35; 22:66-71) where Luke purposely separated references to the Messiah and the Son of God from each other. It means that Luke did not want to confuse the two but assign separate meanings to them, whereby the title 'Son of God' assumed a higher meaning than that of the 'Messiah'. According to the biblical scholar Fitzmeyer, the understanding of the Sanhedrin and Luke of the title 'Son of God' is not the same. For the Sanhedrin, it could only mean the Messiah, while Luke meant it as referring to the unique relationship of the Son to God the Father. In this context, we may note here a significant change Luke made to the Centurion's confession that Jesus was Son of God both by Mark (Mark, 15: 39) and by Matthew (Matthew, 27:54). Luke purposely altered the confession of the Centurion to "this man was just" (Luke 23: 47), probably to salvage the real meaning of "Son of God" used by Mark and Matthew given the background of its meaning as applied to the Roman Emperor that was familiar to the Roman Centurion. Since Roman Emperors were considered to be sons of God, the title'Son of God' uttered by a Roman Centurion would not have brought out the real meaning intended to be conveyed by Luke.    
                                                       In the Gospel according to John, the very first chapter gives a view of Jesus that is meant to govern the meaning of the title 'Son of God' in the rest of the book. The status of Jesus who was the Word made flesh (John, 1: 14) and was himself God by dwelling with God from eternity (John, 1:1) is gradually unfolded as the Son of God who could claim equality with God (John, 5: 17-18; 6: 40; 14: 9; 16: 3; 17: 20-23 etc.). The Epistles of Paul were the first New Testament books written between A. D. 52 and 60 and were earlier than even the Gospels, which were written between A. D. 70 and 100. Paul teaches the divinity of Jesus Christ without any ambiguity (Romans, 1: 3-4; Galatians, 4: 4; Ephesians, 4: 13;Philippians, 2: 6-11; Colosians, 1: 13-20; 2: 9-10; Hebrews, 1: 1-14; 2: 5-9; 5:5, etc.), although he was not a follower of Jesus in his earthly life. According to his own testimony, Paul received what we taught not from any man, but from Jesus Christ through revelation (Galatians, 1: 12). We may see that what Paul taught is in conformity with what the 12 Apostles taught as seen from the Gospels and from the Acts of the Apostles besides the Letters known as the Catholic Epistles.  
                                                       After having seen the testimony of the Father and of the Son about the divinity of Jesus Christ, it is only natural to ask about the role of the Holy Spirit.The manner in which the Holy Spirit testifies to Jesus Christ as the Son of God is to be seen in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as well as in the guidance of the Church till the end of the World. As we shall see in the next two Posts about the Church usage of the title and its present use, where the role of the Holy Spirit is implied, a separate treatment of it may not be necessary.