cheenc03a.pdf

SON OF GOD
Pilare. The eariiei form of the narrative
reserved in Lk. ~~iaher no mention of false witnessen,
hiasphemy, a formal sentence to death, and personal
indignities, but tells of two false charges brought agaiust
Jesus by the before Pilnte-viz.. his forbidding lo
give tribute to C ~rar and his declaring that he himself
is the Chiiat, nn anointed king. Mk. has all the nddilions
of \It. and, berider, taker the important step of
hanging Zi) rirrar itrto 'EyiS rip, ' I am.' What took
place in the residence to which Jerur had been
carried was probably as little known to his disciples as
to us. (see Brandt, 538: We. Skiseen, 6 [la991
207; cp SIMON PETEX, 5 15.) At the time when
there accounts were el~hnated. 'Son of hlnn,'
' Christ.' and 'Son of God' had become synonymous.
and 'Son of God' mas understuud as 'God.' so
that the blasphemy of making oneself equal with God
couid he conceived of as a charge brought against
Jesus. The 'Son of God' in Mt. 2i4o is lacking in the
paraiiei pasrage Mk. 15.9 f, and the utterance is based
on Mt. 2661 (Mk. 1458). having no more historic value
than there improbable tertimonies.
In utter amazement at the miracles that accomoanied
a the death of Jesus. the centurion cried
21, Cent 'Of a truth this is the Son of God' (or
'the son of a cod'). hlt. 27rr -. iMk. ,
1539). AS there is no reason to;up;ose that the great
darkness, the
the rending of the veil in the
temple, and the rising of the dead from their tombs
actually occurred [ ~p EARTHQUAKE, $ 21. the uscasiu~l
for such an exclamation did not exist. Of these miracles
Mk. mentions the rending of the veil. Since the
centurion couid not have seen this, even if it happened.
his astonishment is left without a cause. If Mk. had
thought that the centurion became convinced of the
divinity of Jesus by the fact that he died somewhat
earlier than expected, uttering n loud cry, he rrould
scarcely have introduced the statement as to the veil.
Ry his tendency to shorten the accounts that he copied,
he has here, as elsewhere, rendered his uwn incongruous.
Both MI. and Mk. no doubt thought of ,Son of God'
inaChriitian sense. While it is ouite doubtful whether
any of the evangelists found the laud cry significant, it
is possible that a centurion accustomed to such sights
saw in the relatively spedy release from suffering an
evidence that thir political criminal was indeed a
righteous man (1.k. 234,). though Lk. thought of the
miracles as occasioning this judgment.
A critical study of the synoptic material leads inevitably
to the conclueion that lerus never called himself
'the Son of God,' and never war
Of addressed by that title. That he was
proclaimed as such by voices from
Synoptics. heave,, and he11 is a notion consonant
with the ideas of the time, but rlot of such n nature as to
command belief at present. Rut this negative result
raises a querfionconcerning the origin of the term 'Son
of God.' Snndny regards it ar certain that it was applied
to Jerur in I 'l'hers. 1 lo, ,z3 years after the ascension.'
and thinks it 'easier md more critical' to see in the
expression u continuation of Jerur' own teaching than
to look for its explanation in other directions. But
apart from the impossibility of proving that the epistle
quoted war written '23 years after the ascension,' by
pointing to the Pauline literature Sanday has himself
drawn the attention away from the line of direct transmission
of the thoughts and words of Jesus. It is indeed
in Hellenistic circles that the title nr we find it applied
10 Jesus is likely to lhare orkginated. There is a porribility
(see 3 6) thnt irr some circles the intensified study
of , Messianic ' prophecies during the first ccnmry A,,,.
caused the term borl%iha to be ascd as a title of the
Messiah. Wernle (Anfdnge unl. Red. zgj) goes too far
when he asscits that no road leads from the OT and
Knbbinism to the doctrine of the deity of Christ, as
Smdny rightly maintains. In Hasmonzean psalms
4701
SON OF GOD
' eodr ' and 'sons of God' are still srnonr-mr and, in
en& of go& is~ ceiestinl princes or as demons continued.
Such a phrase a:, 'sons of God' because rotrr of the lerurrecfion
does not reflect a specifically Christian consclourners,
but is likely lo go back to ' l~nbbinirm.' shoring its
conception of the possibility or hemming a son of God in
ametaphysicalsenre through nresurrection. 'Tendencies
in the direction indicated can be pointed out, and are
natural enough, since the mental hahits of the Ararnaicspeaking
Jew cannor have beer, so radically different from
those of theGreek-speaking Jew. Neverfhelerr it shoti'd
be adnlitred tllrt we possess no direct evidence of the use
of dar P/,ih,i as a Messianic title. on the other hatld,
the term "Idr Uro: was frequently met with in the Grzero-
Koman world as a title of kings and a designation of
heroes born of divine fathers or translated to be with
the gods. The ideas associated with B~bl and vidr 0103
flowed into each other and had a metaphysical rather
th;m an ethical significance. The meaning genern11y
to the term in the empire would unconsciously
colour the thought of Hellenistic Jews when they found
it empioyed in the Greek version of their Scriptures in
what they twk to be predictions of the Messiah. The
tlrles uDr BroD, Klip~or, and Zwriip would certainly apply
as well to the coming king of Israel ar to the Kornnn
Emperor. SO far Jewish thought might certainly have
. one, fhoueh - it cannot be strictly . proved . that it went.
It is nor necessary to go outside the boundaries of
Jewish thought, influenced by Greek speculation, for the
ideas of an elevation info the sphere of divine life.
through resurrection and ascension, the victory over
demons knowing the secrets of another world, and even
the birth of n hero without a human father, as Philo
shows. In the present state of NT criticism it is not
possible to date with accuracy the appearance of one or
another of there idrar in Christian literature ; but it
may, prrhups, safely be assumed that they hnd ~11
found expression by the beginning of the second century.
In In. 'Son of God' Id uidr rag Orom occurs ten tirnrs.
in
Of title and 'the Son' fourteen times. Ar in
thc case of the Synoptists it will be
convenient to give the details.
z. 'The Son': In timer.
It is important to observe thnt d uibr roi RroD is used
by John, Nathanuel, Peter. Martha, and the evangelist
himself, but rarely by Jesus, whilst d uldr is as a rule
employed by Jerur alone. In the ecclesivrtical circler
whose chrirtology this gospel reflects, the longer form.
usually in addition to d ~p~arbr, war evidently used in
public confessionr of faith, and the shorter form had
already come into vogue in theological discussions.
To thir evangelist 'the Son' was a divine being uho
had appeared in human shape. He war ,a gbd'
(816s 1,). 'an only-begotten god' (pouoyruilr Bedr
118) who had assumed human nature, had becorne
flesh (Ir4). He war the 1.ogor of whom Philo had
spoken ar 'the Son,' the medium of creation and
redemption. It xms ,>Of blasphemy for him to clninl n
title felt to be equivalent to 'God.' for he had been
sent from heaven, whilst in the Scripturer men who bad
only received oracles from heaven were called 'gods'
j?) And he called those happy whore fai~h
4702