(Audio version; Music: "Hope Now" by: Addison Road and "Prodigal" by: Sidewalk Prophets)
Introduction
You’ll
notice pretty quickly that the format for this lesson series is quite a bit
different from what you might be used to from my other weekly lessons that
expand on a particular biblical text. The goal of this type of lesson is to
help you build some of your theological muscles. For those of you who are
fairly new to my lessons, part of my objective is not just to impart information
to you about the biblical text. It is very dangerous to blindly believe
whatever I or anyone else tries to tell you about God. I want you to know why you believe what you believe. For the purpose of this lesson, if you are a
Christian, I will assume that you believe that Jesus is The Son of God. But do you know why you believe that? What is the
biblical basis for your belief? When you hear something long enough, you take
it for granted that it’s true. The only problem is that Satan knows that as
well and will use that to deceive people who aren’t really all that interested
in knowing why they believe what they believe. Casual and willful ignorance
perpetuates lies that serve to lead people away from faith in the one true God
revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ—What do you think gave birth to
Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Scientists all within the span of sixty
years from 1820 to 1880? These cults, like every other cult throughout history,
took advantage, and continue to take advantage, of either casual of willful
biblical ignorance. And the results have been devastating as people are
deceived and led away from belief in the one true God. That’s why it is so very
important to know why you believe what you believe. And nowhere is this
more important than knowing why we
believe what we believe about Jesus, The Son of God.
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 which only 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 lesson will demonstrate
that while The Son of God title may
have had different meanings to some 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 lesson focuses only on select verses
that depict the various contexts within which The Son of God title is used. Part 1 of our lesson will focuses on
the Spiritual
Perspective represented by the parallel gospel verses of Matthew 8:29
and Luke 4:41 and 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. Part 2 of our lesson will focus on the Greco-Roman Perspective
as found in the parallel verses of Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39 and how our
understanding of The Son of God used
in its various contexts speaks to our lives today.
Spiritual Perspective
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 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.”
“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, 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. Not only do the demons
recognize Jesus’ precise divine nature, they fully understand the
eschatological significance of his presence. “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] “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] 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, “That the rebuke is heeded shows his
authority…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.”[6]
“Judaism expected the Messiah to be proclaimed in limited ways and the title
itself may produce expectations that Jesus will have to correct.”[7]
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 but refused to ascribe the
title to Jesus and instead used it to condemn Him.
Jewish Perspective
Historical Observations
“In many ways
Jesus was closer to the Pharisees than to any other Jewish sectarian; their
quarrels were internecine or ‘family’ disputes.”[8] 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 claiming
that “the title ‘the Son’ is never used in Jewish sources or in pre-Hellenistic
Christian sources as a title for the Messiah.”[9] However, there are some very important points
to consider with respect to this position: “Scholars [have] drawn attention to
the evidence of the Florilegium (a fancy word for a collection of literary
extracts) from Cave Four at Qumran (the Qumran Caves are the site of an
important archaeological excavation in the Judaean Desert of the West Bank
where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered).
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…: ‘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.”[10]
“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) which suggest
that Messiah as Son of God was not totally foreign to Palestinian Judaism.”[11] Although “in contemporary Judaism in particular, ‘Son of God’ is not really used
as a title for the Messiah (italics added)…more than any other title in the New
Testament, the title Son of God connects the figure of Jesus with God.”[12]
Other plausible
theories have been advanced with respect to how the Jewish leadership perceived
The Son of God title. “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.”[13]
Alternatively, Matthew’s word order
in the original Greek…in the phrase; huios
tou theou, (literal: “Son of God”) reveals that Matthew likely
recognized these words as a Christological title. “The former word order 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 (literal: God the Son) occur
within the New Testament only in the First Gospel.”[14] 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 the subject verses as identified
above 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
But
Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by
the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ (or Messiah), the Son of God.”
This dialogue
occurs at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin. “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.”[15]
The synoptic parallel of this event recorded in Mark will help to shed some
additional light on our understand of the events recorded by Mathew. An
argument can be made from the position of the grammatical construct of the
phrase; “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One (Mk 14:61) (cf. ‘…the Christ,
the Son of God’ in Matthew).” “Is there another way of understanding the
titles…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.”[16]
In contrast, some
scholars believe that “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.”[17] However, given the context of the events,
“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.”[18]
Instead, it is
more likely that Caiaphas’ rending of his robe in Matthew 26:65 was a reaction
to the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 26:64b and that Jesus’ claim to be The Son of God was a claim to divine
equality. 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, Caiaphas
understood grammatically 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 taunt loses much of its punch.
Some scholars
offer a more mediating position claiming, “most uses of blasphemy were
non-technical and the high priest might admit whatever he needed as blasphemy.”[19] 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 Son of God title.
Luke 22:70
They
all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.”
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. The progression of the 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.[20]
“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.”[21]
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
The
Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die,
because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
John
does not record a parallel account to the Synoptics (the Synoptic Gospels are
Matthew, Mark, and Luke) 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. At least in John’s gospel,
some of the Jewish leadership seemed to have a very good grasp on the magnitude
of Jesus’ claims of divinity. John’s gospel harkens us back to an event
recorded earlier 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.”
The language of John 19:7 unveils another worry: by “son” Jesus is saying that he has the
authority of God himself.[22]
“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 (the period of time between the Old and New Testaments)
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.”[23]
Most significant,
however, the proper insight of how the Jewish authorities understood Jesus’
claims to be The Son of God would be
that “The messianic pretension was serious enough, but the claim to be Son of
God, with its accompanying roles of Redeemer and Revealer, was intolerable.”[24]
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. 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 and Jairus’ daughter. 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 whereby his claims
would have necessarily placed 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? In Part 2 of our lesson we will survey the
possible understanding of The Son of God
title from a Greco-Roman Perspective and how our own understanding about The Son of God informs, forms, and
transforms our lives today.
[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.
[7]
Darrell L. Bock, Luke, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), p. 147.
[8]
Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, p. 48.
[9] 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.)
[10]
Loc. cit.
[11]
Green, Et al. (eds.), DJG, p. 770.
[12]
Martin Hengel, The Son of God, (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1976),
p. 63.
[13]
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.)
[14]
Robert L. Mowery, “Subtle Differences:
The Matthean ‘Son of God’ References”, Novum Testamentum XXXII, 3
(1990), p. 200.
[15]
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28-Word Biblical Commentary,
(Dallas, TX: Word, Inc., 1995), p. 799.
[16]
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.”
[17]
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.
[18]
Marcus, Mark 14:61, p. 127
[19]
Keener, Matthew, p. 377.
[20]
Bock, NIV Luke, pp. 1,801-1,802.
[21]
Bock, ECNT Luke, p. 578.
[22]
Gary M. Burge, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), p. 504.
[23]
D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary-The Gospel According to
John, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 599.
[24]
George R. Beasley-Murray, John-Word Biblical Commentary, (Nashville,
TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p.
338.
No comments:
Post a Comment