The purpose of this article is to articulate on the Christological perspective in the theology of John Hick focusing on his understanding about ``son of the God`` and ``Son the God`` which are titles of Jesus Christ. Through articulating his Christology, I will reveal Hick`s logical ambiguousness. John Hick is regarded as the founder of the theology of religion, especially real-centric pluralism in Christian theology. Based on Kant`s epistemology, he differentiates experience or faith on God from God itself, and emphasizes the relative aspect of Christianity rather than the absolute aspect of that. His real-centric religious pluralism advances toward relativization of the absolute aspect of Jesus Christ. In order to relativize Jesus` divine aspect, he insists that one should read ``son of the God``, ``Son the God`` and incarnation metaphorically rather than literally. In other words, Hick relativizes the absoluteness on Jesus through metaphorical reading of the titles to Jesus, especially ``son of the God`` and ``Son the God.`` Therefore, his Christology provides a theoretical foundation to his real-centric religious theology. Even though I do not follow to Hick`s real-centric religious pluralism, I will not criticize his pluralism in this paper because it is not the purpose of this paper and there are many articles to criticize his religious theology at home and abroad. Therefore, this paper will try to find ambiguousness in his Christological perspective, and suggest a solution to overcome his ambiguousness based on Sally Mcfague`s theory on metaphor and model. Firstly, I will try to construct the historical Jesus that Hick explains. Hick does not write the historical Jesus systematically. He tries to explain it with the Christ of faith. Therefore, I will reconstruct his understanding of historical Jesus. Secondly, I will articulate Hick`s claim regarding how Jesus as a human being was transposed as the divine Jesus. It means the transposition from ``son of the God`` to ``Son the God.`` Thirdly, I will point out the ambiguousness in Hick`s Christology. I will insist that there are literal reading and metaphorical reading on ``son of the God`` and ``Son the God.`` Lastly, based on Mcfague`s differentiation model from metaphor, I will suggest that the title, ``son of the God`` should be defined as a metaphor, but the title, ``Son the God`` should be defined as a model.