A Titular Study In Spiritual, Judaic And Hellenistic Context
Part Two
In Part One of this series, we looked at how the title of the “Son of God” was understood within the spiritual realm. Now we will investigate how the title was perceived and understood within Judaism of Jesus’ time.
Judaic Perspective
Professor Craig Blomberg writes that, “In many ways Jesus was closer to the Pharisees than to any other Jewish sectarian; their quarrels were internecine or ‘family’ disputes.”[1] However, unlike typical family disputes, this one would eventual lead to Jesus’ execution. Although the Son of God title need not have meant more than a holy man from the Davidic line in the culture of Jesus’ day, it was clearly understood by the Jewish leadership as implying something much more significant—something that would warrant a death sentence. Nevertheless, certain modern day scholars contend that the title was a later church development. Specifically, scholar Joachim Jeremias contends, “The title ‘the Son’ is never used in Jewish sources or in pre-Hellenistic Christian sources as a title for the Messiah.”[2] However, Howard Marshall makes an important observation with respect to Jeremias’ position as he writes;
“The first is whether the facts are as Jeremias states them. The evidence has been surveyed by R. H. Fuller who, along with other scholars, has drawn attention to the evidence of the Florilegium from Cave Four at Qumran. Here the important text, II Samuel 7:14: ‘I will be his father and he shall be my son,’ is quoted and applied to the Branch of David. Admittedly this is not quite a titular use, but it would seem to be fair to agree with Fuller’s conclusion: ‘Son of God was just coming into use as a Messianic title in pre-Christian Judaism….It meant not a metaphysical relationship, but adoption as God’s vice-regent in his kingdom.’ There is, therefore, some reason to question the confidence of Jeremias’ assertion.”[3]
Fuller’s position finds support in Green’s Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels (“DJG”) where it is written; “Although there are relatively few OT references to the king as son of God, this usage stands closer to the meaning of the title in the NT than do references to angels or even to the people as a whole…In spite of the sparsity of references which relate the Messiah to divine sonship, the observations that (1) messianic hope in the period was almost always linked to an ideal Davidic king (who in the OT is described as Son of God) and (2) some NT statements seem to assume a connection between Messiah and Son of God (e.g., Mk 14:61; Mt 16:16) suggest that Messiah as Son of God was not totally foreign to Palestinian Judaism.”[4]
Other plausible theories have been advanced with respect to how the Jewish leadership perceived the Son of God title. George Zeller writes;
“The word ‘son’ is used in the Old Testament so frequently as to discourage the effort to count the occurrences. In the overwhelming majority of cases it is used in the literal sense of offspring or descendant. In a significant number of cases, however, the word ‘son’ is used in the non-literal sense, indicating a person’s profession, his status or circumstance, or his character…we are being consistent with the Old Testament idiom when we maintain that the expression ‘Son of God,’ when applied to Jesus Christ, means possessing the nature of, displaying the quality of, God…The New Testament uses the idiom in the same way as the Old Testament, especially when indicating nature or character...we can test ourselves for accuracy in the understanding of it as applied to Christ, by observing how the Jews responded or reacted when Jesus taught concerning his relation as the Son to the Father…They knew that when Jesus said he was the Son of God he was claiming to be of the nature of God and equal to God.”[5]
Furthermore, Robert Mowery contends that Matthew’s Greek word order of huios theou (literally; “son God”) versus theou huios (literally; “God son”) in the phrase; huios tou theou (literally, “son of God”) reveals that Matthew likely recognized these words as a Christological title when he identifies Jesus as “theou huios” (in grammatical construct; “God the Son”). Mowery writes; “The former word order [huios tou theou] was a widely-known early Christian word order, for it occurs in all four of the canonical gospels plus several other New Testament books. In contrast, the words theou huios occur within the New Testament only in the First Gospel [Matthew].”[6] There certainly is no shortage of opinions on the Jewish understanding underlying the Son of God title. Consequently, it seems appropriate at this juncture to review some relevant verses in greater detail in an attempt at developing a unifying theme with respect to the Judaic understanding of the Son of God title.
Matthew 26:63
At Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin, Matthew records the words of Caiaphas as; “The high priest said to him, ‘I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.’” Hagner writes; “There is no need to suppose by this language that the high priest meant exactly what the early church meant by this phrase in its Christology. That the Messiah would be the Son of God, even uniquely so, was quite probably the high priest’s own understanding.”[7] Joel Marcus makes an argument from the position of the grammatical construct of the parallel phrase in Mark’s Gospel; “The Christ, the Son of the Blessed (cf. ‘The Christ, the Son of God’ in Matthew).” Marcus writes;
“Is there another way of understanding the titles of [Mark] 14:61 that makes more sense of the charge of blasphemy? I would like to suggest there is; the two titles are in restrictive rather than non-restrictive apposition, so that the second qualifies the first…the first title, ‘Christ,’ is viewed as a member of a class which can be linguistically identified only through the modification supplied by the second, ‘the Son of God.’…The second title, “the Son of God,” far from being a synonym for ‘the Messiah,’ indicates what sort of messianic expectation is in view: not the Messiah-Son-of-David, nor the Messiah as the son of any other human being, but rather the Messiah-Son-of-God.”[8]
In contrast to the opinion of both Hagner and Marcus, Blomberg writes; “Caiaphas also uses the title ‘Son of God,’ but given the messianic interpretation of this expression, Christ and Son of God are synonymous in his mind.”[9] However, given the context of the events, Marcus writes;
“Why would Jesus’ claim to be ‘the Messiah, the Son of God’ be considered blasphemous if ‘Son of God’ is merely a synonym for ‘Messiah’? What is blasphemous about claiming to be the Messiah? One searches Jewish literature in vain for evidence that a simple claim to be the Messiah would incur such a charge.”[10]
An argument could be made that perhaps Caiaphas’ rending of his robe in Matthew 26:65 was a reaction to the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 26:64b. However, if an affirmative response to the high priests’ initial question were not going to be enough to condemn Jesus, then why ask the question in the first place? If Jesus had simply offered an affirmative response to the initial question, as recorded in Matthew 26:64a, and then said nothing else, the high priest would have had nothing with which to condemn Jesus. Unless, of course, Hagner and Marcus are correct in their assessment that Caiaphas understood that “Son of God” modified “Christ” as opposed to being synonymous with it. Additionally, Matthew records that after Caiaphas’ proclamation of Jesus’ guilt, those present abused him physically and taunted him saying; “Prophesy to us, Christ! Who hit you?” If the title of Christ were not previously modified by the Son of God title to show a unique relationship with God then the taunts are merely gratuitous brutality without warrant. Keener offers a mediating position in his commentary when he writes; “Most uses of blasphemy were non-technical and the high priest might admit whatever he needed as blasphemy.”[11] However, it is unnecessary to offer a mediating view of the events at Jesus’ trial. It was not the first time Jesus made claims that led some Jewish leaders to take up stones in an effort to kill him. Although witnesses perjured themselves at Jesus’ trial in order to secure his conviction, it is unlikely that the Sanhedrin needed more than Jesus’ public admission of essential equality with God as evidenced by Caiaphas’ use of the Son of God title.
Luke 22:70
Luke’s parallel account of the events at Jesus’ trial supports the argument made above from the Matthean verses that the Jewish leadership condemned Jesus based on his claim to be the Son of God and what they understood that to mean. Luke records the events of the trial as;
“Jesus was led before them. ‘If you are the Christ,’ they said, ‘tell us.’ Jesus answered, ‘If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the might God. They all asked, ‘Are you then the Son of God?’ He replied, ‘You are right in saying I am.’ Then they said, ‘Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.’”
The progression of these six verses in Luke are far less ambiguous when trying to discern the Jewish leaderships understanding of who Jesus claimed to be. Jesus’ Son of Man proclamation and Son of God affirmation respectively in Luke are reversed from the parallel account in Matthew. In Luke 22:70, the first part of the sentence, “Are you then” supposes that the immediately preceding Son of Man proclamation by Jesus does not actually reach its blasphemous significance until the affirmation of the remaining sentence, “the Son of God?” However, the last sentence of this particular interchange between Jesus and the members of the Sanhedrin is of greatest significance. After Jesus’ affirmation to the question of whether he was the Son of God, the Sanhedrin asked; “Why do we need any more testimony?” It seems obvious that if Jesus’ Son of Man proclamation were the condemning testimony, as some contend, then why ask the follow-up question; “Are you then the Son of God (italics added)?” Probably because they understood that the Son of God title affirmed by Jesus was used by Jesus to demonstrate his equality with God.[12] Bock writes;
“The nature of Jesus’ blasphemy has always been a subject of debate. Was it a claim to be God? Was it a claim to be Messiah? Was it the claim to sit at God’s side in heaven? Just what did Jesus say that was so condemning in Jewish eyes? The key remark appears to be his claim to be Son of God (i.e. the Messiah), not merely in the regal sense, but as it is tied to the claim of being the Danielic Son of Man. Jesus in effect is claiming the right to go directly into God’s presence and be seated with him in heaven. To Jewish ears this is highly offensive.”[13]
Luke clarifies that until Jesus affirmed his unique position as the Son of God, the members of the council did not seem to think they had enough evidence to convict him.
John 19:7
John does not record a parallel account to the Synoptics of the events of Jesus’ trial. However, John does record the council’s words and actions from their discourse with Pontius Pilate after Pilate indicates that he finds no basis for a charge against Jesus. The members of the council insisted; “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” At least in John’s gospel, some of the Jewish leadership seemed to have a very good grasp of the magnitude of Jesus’ claims of divinity. Gary Burge in his commentary on John’s gospel harkens us back to an event recorded earlier by the writer of the fourth gospel where it is recorded in John 5:18; “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” Burge comments that the language of John 19:7 veils another worry: by “son” Jesus is saying that he has the authority of God himself.[14] D. A. Carson very succinctly summarizes;
“The language of the Jewish officials, ‘he claimed to be the Son of God’, almost sounds as if the claim itself was sufficient to presume guilt of blasphemy. In many contexts that was demonstrably untrue. The anointed king of Israel was sometimes referred to as God’s Son in the Old Testament, and in some of the intertestamental sources ‘Son of God’ is parallel to ‘Messiah’. But Jesus’ opponents rightly recognize that as he uses the title there are overtones not only of messiahship but of sharing the rights and authority of God himself.”[15]
Most significant, however, to proper insight of how the Jewish authorities understood Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God are the comments made by George Beasley-Murray; “The messianic pretension was serious enough, but the claim to be Son of God, with its accompanying roles of Redeemer and Revealer, was intolerable”[16] To expand on Murray’s comments, it is not enough to try and understand the various uses of the title Son of God in a contemporary or historical context. In the case of Jesus’ claim to the Son of God title, it is vitally important to view Jesus’ claim to that title in the context of his overall ministry. The Jewish authorities regularly avoided taking action against Jesus because of the large crowds that followed him. And those large crowds were following him because the blind received sight, the lame walked, those who had leprosy were cured, the deaf had their ears opened, the dead were raised, and the good news was preached to the poor (Luke 7:22). In other words, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was not just words—it was action as well. Jesus’ actions were not simply everyday events that were easily ignored—especially when someone is raised from the dead as in the case of Lazarus (John 11) and Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:35-43). The Jewish authorities had two or three years to consider Jesus’ words and actions. Furthermore, Jesus’ divine claims were not isolated cases. Toward the end of his ministry, and certainly by the final week of his life, it is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus’ reputation began to precede him wherever he went. Consequently, it is not probable that the members of the Sanhedrin were completely naïve to Jesus’ claim of having a unique relationship with the Father thereby placing him in a position of equality with God. It is also unlikely that Jesus’ trial was a forum to give Jesus the opportunity to vindicate himself of false accusations or to properly edify the Jewish authorities. It is far more likely that the Jewish authorities, by the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry, were well aware of the gravity of Jesus’ claims about himself. The Jewish leadership was far better equipped, theologically, to understand Jesus’ claims about himself and yet they suffered from the same affliction as do many in our world today. They understood who Jesus was claiming to be, they simply refused to believe it!
John 19:8 records Pilate’s reaction to the words of the Jewish authorities as; “When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. ‘Where do you come from?’ he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.” Interestingly, the reaction of the Jewish authorities who best understood the complete meaning of ‘Son of God’ was violent rage while the reaction of the Roman authority who least understood the complete meaning of ‘Son of God’ was sudden fear. This would not be the only episode where Gentiles would react more appropriately to the claims of Jesus about himself then did his own countrymen. But what exactly did the Son of God title mean to Gentiles? Part 3 will lead us through a brief survey of the possible understanding of the Son of God title within Hellenistic culture.
[1] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), p. 48.
[2] I. Howard Marshall, “The Divine Sonship of Jesus”, Interpretation 21, (1967), p. 92. (cf. Seyoon Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God”, (Germany: Einband Heinrich Koch, Grosbuchbinderei, Tubingen, 1983), p. 22.) (cf. I. Howard Marshall, “The Origins of New Testament Christology”, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 111.)
[3] Ibid.
[4] Joel B. Green. Et al. (eds.), Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels (“DJG”), (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 770.
[5] George W. Zeller, The Eternal Sonship Of Christ, (Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1993), pp. 99, 102-103 (Non-literal examples include: (1) Sons of the prophets – 1 Kings 20:35, 2 Kings 2:3 – refer to men belonging to a prophetic band; (2) Sons of oil – Zech. 4:14 – are ones anointed with oil, in this case members of the priestly office; (3) Son of the perfumers – Neh. 3:8 – a member of the perfumers’ trade; (4) Son of Goldsmiths – Neh 3:31 – a goldsmith.)
[6] Robert L. Mowery, “Subtle Differences: The Matthean ‘Son of God’ References”, Novum Testamentum XXXII, 3 (1990), p. 200.
[7] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28-Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas, TX: Word, Inc., 1995), p. 799.
[8] Joel Marcus, “Mark 14:61: Are You The Messiah-Son-Of-God?”, Novum Testamentum XXXI, 2 (1989) p. 130. Marcus provides definitional information: In non-restrictive apposition, the second appositive provides additional, parenthetical information not essential for identifying the referent, which is already identified in the first appositive. In other words, identifying Mark 14:61 as a non-restrictive apposition necessarily makes the two titles synonymous. However, Marcus argues; “Why would Jesus’ claim to be ‘the Messiah, the Son of God’ be considered blasphemous if the ‘Son of God’ is merely a synonym for ‘Messiah’? What is blasphemous about claiming to be the Messiah?
One searches Jewish literature in vain for evidence that a simple claim to be the Messiah would incur such a charge. Although the Mishnaic limitation of blasphemy to pronunciation of the divine name (San. 7:5) probably reflects a later restriction of the charge, it is likely that already in New Testament times blasphemy was defined as misuse of God’s name. This criterion is not met by the staking of a messianic claim if, as normally the case in Jewish texts, the Messiah is simply a human figure from the line of David.”
[9] Blomberg, Matthew, Op. cit., p. 402. Blomberg comments that Marcus’ position clouds the interpretation of v. 64b, but Marcus’s position is an argument for the grammatical construct of a restrictive apposition and v. 64b (a) does not contain an appositional phrase; and (b) Marcus’ position does not seem to affect the interpretation of v. 64b in any way.
[10] Ibid., p. 127
[11] Craig S. Keener, Matthew-The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, USA, 1997), p. 377.
[12] Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), pp. 1,801-1,802.
[13] Darrell L. Bock, Luke, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), p. 578.
[14] Gary M. Burge, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), p. 504.
[15] D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary-The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 599.
[16] George R. Beasley-Murray, John-Word Biblical Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p. 338.
No comments:
Post a Comment