A Titular Study In Spiritual, Judaic And Hellenistic Context
This is part one of a four part series intended to look at the meaning of one of the tiles ascribed to Jesus; the “Son of God.” The title was not entirely unknown prior to the incarnation of Jesus. It was a title that was often given to the Roman supreme leadership while at the same time holding a special significance to the Jewish community. Furthermore, with reference to “God” in the title, it is not unreasonable to assume that the title is relevant in the spiritual realm as well. As such, some might say that the title holds little significance in reference to Jesus because of the multiplicity of usages during Jesus’ day. However, I contend that the title, when used in reference to Jesus, is the most appropriate and suitable use of the title.
This is a somewhat technical writing so it might help if you have your Bible close at hand so you can read the many Biblical references in their context. Also, I will add words as necessary to the “Significant Theological Terms,” (in the right hand column) that might not be part of everyone’s daily vocabulary. Nevertheless, I encourage you to ask any questions you may have and I will do my best to answer them.
Part One
Is it possible that the title, “Son of God,” could be understood as meaning something other than the title properly signifying Jesus Christ’s unique relationship with God the Father? Scholars seem divided as to whether the Son of God title was a later development of the New Testament Church who later ascribed the title to Jesus with its fully developed Christological significance[1] or whether the title is in fact consistent with Jesus’ words and actions. This survey strives to demonstrate that while the Son of God title may have had different meanings given its use in various contexts, the words and actions of certain Biblical characters betray the fact that in some cases there was a much deeper understanding of the underlying meaning of the Son of God title.
Although there are thirty-eight references to the “Son of God” in the New Testament (NIV), this survey focuses on select verses that depict the various contexts within which the title is used. Therefore, the focus will be on the spiritual dimension represented by the parallel gospel verses of Matthew 8:29 and Luke 4:41, the Jewish perspective represented by the parallel gospel verses of Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:70 and the non-parallel verse of John 19:7 and finally, the Greco-Roman perspective as found in the parallel verses of Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39.
Not surprisingly, one of the clearest uses of the Son of God title, complete with its divine meaning, is used by demons as more generally referenced by Luke 4:41 but more specifically by the demon of Matthew 8:29 where Matthew records the chilling account of Jesus’ encounter with the demon Luke identifies as Legion;
“When he arrived at the other side [of the Sea of Galilee] in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. ‘What do you want with us, Son of God?’ they shouted. ‘Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?’ Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, ‘if you drive us out, sends us into the herd of pigs.’ He said to them, ‘Go!’ So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water.”
Professor Craig Blomberg writes; “…several scholars suggest that Matthew’s use of the term [Son of God] even more closely approaches the full-fledged divinity the later creeds and confessions make explicit.”[2] Even given Matthew’s exalted view of Jesus, it is Mark, in his Gospel (Mark 5:7), who records the demon addressing Jesus as “Son of the Most High God.” In any event, it should not come as a surprise that demons would recognize Jesus as the divine Son of God when Satan, the chief demon himself, confesses exactly that at Jesus’ temptation as recorded by Matthew earlier in his gospel (See Matthew 4:1-9). Not only do the demons recognize Jesus’ precise divine nature, they fully understand the eschatological significance of his presence. Craig Keener writes; “The demons here, believing they are free to torment people until the final day and expecting eternal torment in the day of judgment, recognize that their judge has just shown up, before the appointed time.”[3] Blomberg, writes; “Like Satan at Jesus’ temptation, they [the demons] acknowledge him as Son of God and recognize their eventual doom. The end times were breaking into human history with Jesus’ exorcisms, demonstrating the inauguration of God’s kingdom.”[4] Donald Hagner points out that only Satan and his demons have used the Son of God title to this point in Jesus’ ministry. In each encounter, Jesus’ divine identity, though veiled to the human eye, is clearly perceived in the spiritual realm.[5] Jesus immediately silences the public confession of the demon and as Darrell Bock writes; “That the rebuke is heeded shows his authority.”[6] Bock then continues; “The most likely reasons why the silence might have been commanded are that the demons represented an ‘undesirable’ endorsement and that the popular reaction to a Messiah might have included political expectations that Jesus wished to avoid…Judaism expected the Messiah to be proclaimed in limited ways and the title itself may produce expectations that Jesus will have to correct.”[7] Specifically, one of the expectations of Judaism for the foretold Messiah was a powerful leadership figure that would deliver Israel from the oppressive rule of the Roman Empire. This may have been one of the Messianic expectations Jesus want to avoid as his objective was to be far more magnificent than to simply establish political or military supremacy over Israel’s oppressors. The Son of God title would become increasingly important as a confession by the disciples later in Jesus’ ministry. However, it will also be an emphatic point of contention before the Jewish religious leadership who fully recognized the divine implications of the title yet refused to ascribe the title to Jesus and instead used it to condemn him.
[1] Joel B. Green. Et al. (eds.), Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels (“DJG”), (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 771.
[2] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), p. 130.
[3] Craig S. Keener, Matthew-The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, USA, 1997), p. 183.
[4] Craig L. Blomberg; Matthew-The New American Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), p. 151.
[5] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13-Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1993), p. 227.
[6] Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), p. 438.
[7] Darrell L. Bock, Luke, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), p. 147.
No comments:
Post a Comment