cheenc03a.pdf

SON OF GOD
,, One raised "re said to be equal to angels and
SOL,. of God, because they ace son. of
*Iorn the dead' the resurrection: Accardine Lo Rom.
I+ Jesus was shown to be a son of God by his
resurrection from the dead. The idea that the ranks
of the heavenly beings may thus be increaed, in
older than the thought of a resurrection.
Heroer ,hiit %re well~plearing to the godr may he
to 11s with them for ever, as Uta-n=plitt ~n the G~lgsmri epic, or
Enoch and ElQrh [see Drrure, ) 11, ELI,*" E~ocn and cp
ETHAN, YIIIAI)ISE, 8 11. Slilvonlc Enmh122 eiye: a fi?<
description of Enosh's reception in heaven, and h~r celerual
garments. Into the samr company of heavenly h~ings men
could be brought from the rubteimnesn realms of Sheal, when
the >lazda,.a\n,m doctrine of a rervrr~ction had become familiar
in Israel. Even in circler where the Greek conception of
immorrnlity prevailed, the godly mm was riippsed to rake vp
his r1,ode niter death among the sons or God, and to ~bt~i? hlr
inheritance nmonz the uints (Wiid. 55). It ir the merlr of
Brrcon (Neru fvorld, ,399, pp. I Z + ~ to ) hwe silled attention
to thir thought.
Among the Jews accessible to Greek philosophy. it
was especially Philo who prepared the way for the
Christian doctrine of the son of God bv his Loeor-
*, The logos ipec~~lation. When he called fhir
Logos 'the perfect son.' 'the firztbm
son of God' (Dc Vit. Mm. 14 ; De Conf Ling.
14 : Dc A&'. I*), he did not imply thnt it war an
individual, an hypostasis, a person. Yet it war inevitable
that the term ,son of God' should suezest a
mediator between God and the world, a celertial
personality more grandly conceived than any other
associated with the name, and herein lies much of its
historic importance (see 9523, 25; and for adercription
of Philo's Logos the careful studies of !?an Reville.
SouIi~r. Siegfried, Anathon Aall, and Grill).
The term 'son of God ' (ulbr OroD, uibr roc BroD. d ulbr
708 OroD) or 'my (sc. Gds) son' (ulbr pou) occurs in
'he synoptic gospels 27 times, and the
g,
89nOptiE8
The
term $the son' (b ulbr) g timer. It will
be convenient to record the occurrences
in detail and to classify them.
r. 'SO,, of God'or 'my (God's) son':--., time.
SON OF GOD
It is not sufficient, however, to consider the texts in
which the title actually occurs. Pnaaagri thro,ving light
upon Jesud conception of the di~lne
fatherhood in general and man's son-
Of
shio rnurt also be examined. Parubles
in which the tern, 'son' might be regarded as referring
to Jesus, must be taken into coosidenation. Wheneier
a reputed saying of Jrslls is drawn into the diicossion,
if "lust be tested in a retransiation into the Aramaic
dialect spoken by Jesus; and the some applies to
utterances concerning him by persons to whom thir
Galilean speech was the vernacular. The diKerences
between the accounts of the evangelists =lust he observed.
It is not permissible to leave out of sight the
peculiaritier of the evangelists, or the influence upon
their minds of later thought and a growing tradition.
It is necessary to bear in mind the fiindat~>ental distinction
between the Greek word$ ascribed to Jerus which
we possess, aod the Aramaic serltences he spoke which
we can only surmise : between the stories told for
religious edification, and the history often ryrnboliied
rather than described in them. Moreover, the condition
of the text must be redulourly watched.
In u &mber of passages whore rubztantial genuineness
admits of little doubt Iesus is reported as having
used the term 'sons of God,' or an
11. Ethical equivalent, of men in such a manner as
~ignificance to imply a certain moral likeness to
in genuine r.,~
ii. In two Go~pelr : + time.
Mt. 275*=Mk. lSig(cenrurion) = once.
Mk. 51=Lk. 828 (demon) = once.
MI. 43=Lk. 43 (temptation)] = twice,
Mt.46=Lk. 49 . ..
The svnootic , . tmdition records no utterance of Teius
iii. In one Goroel :-lo timer
in which he dirtinctly refers to himself as a 'son of God '
Mk. 1I (~"perwription) 8x1 (demon) =twice.
In Mt. 27,, it ir indeed said that
Mt. 59 (nanle or pace&akerr) I*?, (?fter
la. Jesus' mocking high pricsts, scribes, and
-Ik an the sea), la .a (~~t~~'~'~~~&rs~on).
27+0(at rhecrosr), 2733 (alleged quolarion)=i times.
cOnsCiOUBness elders quoted him as having raid : 'I
a 'On Of
Lk. 131 35 (annunciat3on), 338(gensnlogy)=3 fim-
m a son of God: The only ground
2. 'The ron'R . uldr)rlone: ~. o times
for such an assertion would be lerur' answer to the hieh
a. Enumeration.
pkst'~ question (Mf. 2667). ~ u see t 5 lo and SON EP
Mt. 11 27 (thrice) 2436 28 19 = 5 times. MAN. 5 37 (end). The taunt seems to have been made
Mk.1332 . . . = once.
Lk. 101. (thrrce) . . . uo
-
. of ohrases . from Wirdom216-r8 (see Brandt, ~04). -.
I timcr. Of more importvnce would be the distinction between
6. Analyrir
The three in Mt. 11.7 corrcrpond to Be three in
'my father' and 'you father,' if this could be traced
Lk. 10%~ 1ymn of Jerur) = 6 back to Jesus himself.
Mk. 133% is squivalenr to Mf. 2436 (not even the
The Gk. text of Mt. giver the impression th?t Jesus said 'my
30") n ather' when spking ~fhi% own God or lo hlm, whllrt hc sad
Mt. 281g (baptismal formula) has no parallel = I 'your father' when rsfsrrlng to the God of his disciple, or the
4695
4696