Maybe you missed the difference between the phrases: "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" and "King and Redeemer"?
"the King of Israel, and his redeemer" is speaking about two different beings with different titles, but people that read those words with the belief that both the Father and the Son are a single being can't seem to understand what "and his" means in the phrase.
"King and Redeemer" is speaking about only one being that has two (or more) titles.
Do you have any evidence (something that you can show) that would demonstrate that
anyone is interpreting that passage as you suggest? Or short of evidence that can be directly shared, do you have personal experience with someone explaining that passage to you in that way? I don't mean Unitarian websites grasping at straw men creating arguments for others (because I just found a few of those), I mean do you know anyone that actually presents such an argument?
... because that clearly isn't what it means. It is using the parallel structure that occurs throughout scripture of repetition and equivalence.
No, that is what the phrase "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" does, not what the title "Son of man" does. The LORD the King of Israel (one) and his redeemer (
the redeemer of
Israel) the LORD of Hosts (the same).
Regardless, attempting to form a "Trinity" from that passage would produce the problem that two is clearly not three, the Trinity does not admit three different
beings but rather argues three different
persons ... and good luck getting a definition of person by the way
. It seems to be one of those purposely vague terms so that one can sometimes be three (or the other way around) on demand.The reason why I bring this passage to bear is because these twin titles of the same God are also used with his unique identification of "the first and the last" trice repeated in Isaiah, and four times used to show the identify of Jesus and Christ as God in Revelation. Jesus identifies himself with multiple titles including "the first and the last" and the meaning of that "first and the last" includes "beside me there is no God." The only reason titles exist is to identify He who bears that title. To ignore the scriptures in this aspect would be purposely omitting evidence.
Which aspect of Jesus is emphasized by the phrase "Son of man"?
Is it His divinity that Jesus is claiming makes Him LORD of the Sabbath?
Or is it His humanity that Jesus is claiming makes Him master of the Sabbath?
The "Son of man" emphasizes that aspect that Jesus was literally manifest in the flesh, he was among us and endured all things as we. See Matthew 16:13, where Jesus asks "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" ... .followed by their responses, finally ending with Peter's (correct) answer that "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." The title of the Son of man emphasizes the more obvious human aspects of Jesus, that are easily seen enough as to be used in the question, whereas "the Son of the living God" is the ultimate answer that is revealed not by flesh and blood, but by God above.
Jesus states that even in his current form, he is also (which means in addition to) the Lord of the Sabbath, with more right to be served on the Sabbath than the temple of God by its priests, with every right to state the intended meaning and application of the Sabbath or even to change its commanded practice. As the Creator of all things and He who made the Sabbath day, this is his innate right. Jesus uses a similar tactic to connect the link between the "Son of man" to "God" when he heals the man sick of palsy.
Mark 2:5-11 KJV
(5) When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy,
Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
(6) But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
(7)
Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
(8) And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
(9) Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy,
Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
(10)
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
(11) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
The detractors saw only the Son of man, but said that when he called himself the Son of God that it was blasphemy, making himself God (John 10:33-36).
If Jesus was attempting to declare humanity... or as I suspect you mean,
mere exclusive humanity, these would not be the statements and actions to support such a claim. Created man is not master of the Sabbath... this is a basic Old Testament understanding:
Exodus 31:14-15 KJV
(14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore;
for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death:
for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
(15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD:
whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
So how did this apply to Jesus? Simply put, the LORD of the Sabbath is is immune to charges of breaking the Sabbath.
John 5:16-18 KJV
(16) And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him,
because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
(17)
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
(18)
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Let's review this for a moment. Jesus said that the priests of the temple were held blameless when they profaned the sabbath in service of the temple. If he meant to say he was merely a man, then his answer need only have continued onward that as a priest serving God he was likewise blameless. Instead he chose to say that he (the son of Man) was
also the Lord of the Sabbath. He did not say that "man" was Lord of the Sabbath, because there is only one such Lord. Any
man who chose to work on the Sabbath was under the divine sentence of death.
This also applies to the example where he healed the man sick of palsy. He could have said that he did not work, but it was his Father above in heaven... but rather in response to their murmurs that "only God can forgive sin" instead he reinforced the accusation with "so that you may know the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins..." (Mark 2:10) and demonstrates that even his command to "rise up and walk" must be obeyed and would even heal sickness.
At this point... just stop for a moment. If Jesus was merely a man (as you have suggested) then why did he continue to antagonize these Jewish leaders and lead them on in this fashion? Where he could have claimed to be a priest, he declared himself Lord of the Sabbath. Where he could have said that he was healing no one, but God above, he instead said that he would now demonstrate that he had
the power to forgive sin. When he was to be stoned for "making himself God" after declaring that he was the judge of the living and the dead, he answered that they were the little gods that would die like men, whereas the context of the psalm was that God would judge among those gods.
At any point Jesus could have said, "I am your fellow man" ...
Acts 10:25-26 KJV
(25) And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
(26) But Peter took him up, saying,
Stand up; I myself also am a man.
But what was the reaction of Jesus to worship?
Matthew 8:2-3 KJV
(2) And, behold, there came a leper
and worshipped him, saying, Lord,
if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
(3) And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying,
I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
Matthew 9:18-19 KJV
(18) While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler,
and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead:
but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
(19)
And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
Matthew 14:32-33 KJV
(32) And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
(33) Then they that were in the ship came
and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Matthew 15:25-28 KJV
(25)
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
(26) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
(27) And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
(28) Then Jesus answered and said unto her
, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
Matthew 28:9 KJV
(9) And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail.
And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Matthew 28:16-17 KJV
(16) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
(17)
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
John 20:28-29 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
(29) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Men of God and angels do not accept worship. If Jesus was not worthy of worship, given so many occurrences like the above
, why is there no record of Jesus ever refusing worship?
Revelation 22:8-9 KJV
(8) And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen,
I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
(9) Then saith he unto me,
See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book:
worship God.
By the way... sorry for the "wall of scripture" approach, but there is no shortage of such instances, and it is important to realize that this is not one isolated instance but rather the intended and intentional emphasis of these gospels.
