SON OF GOD
SOX OF GOD
577
wliicli they point is not a passing phase, but some- thing that goes deep don'n into the essence of being.
Or perhaps the case might be stated thus. The burden of proof really seems to lie with those who would refuse to associate the idea of pre-existence with that of Sjnship. The many examples in which the term ' Son ' is used without any such implication go but a very slight way to exclude it where it is really suggested. In the case of St. John there is a clear presumption that it is so suggested ; whUe in the Synoptic Gospels it is prob- able that the writers had nut rcHected upon the subject at all, and did but reproduce a portion of our Lord s teaching upon it. The decision as to how far the Johannean presentation is to be accented will depend upon the general estimate of tlie Fourth Gospel as a historical authority. To the pre.-ient writer it seems in this instance, as in so many others, just to supply what the other Gospels lead us to the verge of without directly supplying.
(c) For the apostles. — We have seen that the apostolic writers freely make use of the title 'Son of God' as a formula to express their Chris- tian faith, or, as we may say in other words, in order to bring out their belief in the Divine side of the nature of Christ. What tliey meant would be very similar to the well-known exordium of the Secona (so-called) Epistle of Clement : ' Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God (lit xcpi GeoD), as of the Judge of quick and dead.' The phrase, in each case, is vague ; to define it more exactly will be the work of centuries ; but the frame or mould has been provided by which the work of those centuries is to be circumscribed.
The principal question that meets us is the same as that with which we have just been dealing in regard to the Gospels. Does the term ' Son of God,' as used by the apostles, contain any implica- tion of pre-existence, or is it limited to Christ as incarnate ?
Here again by far the greater number of p.issages are ambiguous; if they do not sugge.^-t preixi^teiice and pre-existeut relations, they also do not exclude them. There are, however, two passages that bear upon the ouestion more directly.
One is tlie opening of the £p. to the Hebrews : ' God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets . . . hath at the end of these days spoken unto ua in his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds ; who being the etl'ulgence of his glorj', and the very image of his substance, and upholdmg all things liy the word of his power, when he had made purilication of sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high.'
Two ways of taking this passage are possible. On the one hand, if we argue strictly, it may be urged that there is but one principal clause in the sentence, to which all the otlier subordinate and relative clauses are referred. This principal clause speaks of the Son [of God]. It would tlierefore follow that all the relative clauses point back to Uim as Son. That is to say, that as Son Ho made tlie worlds'; as Son He is the elViilgence of the Divine glory, the image of the Divine sub- stance ; as Son He upheld and upholds all things. That would carry luick the Sonship to tlie time before creation, and would make it an attribute pertaining to the essence of Christ's Godhead.
But, on the other hand, it may be questioned whether we ou''ht in this case to argue strictly. Because the relative clauses refer to the Son, it does not quite necessarily follow that they refer to Uim as Son. It may be urged that the main contrast in the passage is between the previous revelations through the prophets and the final
VOL. IV. — 17
revelation through the Son, i.e. the incarnate Son, and that this contrast dominates the whole pas- sage, many parts of which do indeed point to the Son as incarnate (' whom he appointed heir of all things,' 'when he made purification of sins,' 'sat down at the right hand '). The other clauses, which imply pre-existence, would then be referred to the Son not strictly as such, but by a slight and quite natural laxity of language to Him who [afterwards, in ^^ew of His incarnation] came to be specially called ' Son.' This second way of taking the passage is not really stretched beyond what is common enough in language, though the first would be more accurate.
The other passage is Col 1'"'- " ' the Son of his love . . . who is the image (eiiriii') of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation' [wpoir&TOKO! Trdar/t Krlaeut). Now, it is true that in biblical usage the leading idea in jrpti)T6ro\os is that of the le"al rights of the firstborn, his precedence over all who are bom after him (cf. Ko S^). But in a context like this, in view of the defining genitive Trdatji KTlacus, it seems wrong to exclude the idea of priority as well {irpi jrdtrTjs xriaeui yevvriSds, Tlieodrt. ; otherwise Haupt, Gefanrjenschn/tsbriefe, p. 27). There is not a direct allusion to Ps SO"*"'*, though it is very possible that the Messianic application of that verse led by several steps to the use of the term here. It brings in another cycle of expressions which help to carry back the conception of sonship from the hi.storic to the pre- historic stage. See, further, Lightfoot, Col. ad loc.