Son of God ('the Son,' 'My Son'). This title, like the former, belongs to the OT writings, being found in Gn 6", Ex 4-, 2 S 7'\ Ps 2" 82« SO-"^, Job 1" 38', Hos V IV, anil linir a|. plied in various con- nexions: to offsiniiij .if tla J. .(Is, to angels, to judges, to Israel a^ a | i.ii|.l.' -.i\ing Jehovali, to individual Israelites, t.. tla- tlieniatie king, to the Messiah (Dalman and others object to ' Son of God ' as a Messianic title). The expres-sion ' Son of God ' [or ' My Son '] occurs in the Synoptics 27 times, and 'the Son' 9 times. In St. .lohn 'Son of (iod' occurs 10 tiai.v .m.! Mlie Si.n' 14 times. Both occur in St .l.ihn^ lir-i l'.|.i~tli'. in several of St. Paul's, in ll.lii. A -. ill 1.'. \ . latinn. In the Go.spels tliey are ai.i.lie.i t.j Muisl I.3- the Father, angels, demoniacs. Himself (rarelj', and only in St. John), disciples (iV..B.— St. Peter's confession, Mt IC'"), elders, high priest, centurion. In determining its meaning, we may exclude the idea of pagan influ- ence. There is little probability that the cult of the Roman emperors suggested either the word or its idea. Its application to believers (Mt 5"- ^'', Lk G-», Eph P, Jn 1'=, 1 Jn.3"'=, Eo8»-'^ Ph 2") does not neces.sarily confine its import to the merely human sphere. Its jirevious usage in the OT could not fail to jjrepare the way for a connota- tion of special relationship to God.
I
DIVINITY OF CHRIST
DIVINITY OF CHRIST
477
Tliat Uie term contains Messianic reference is contested by few. In line with it are to be ex- plained the testimony of tlie demoniacs (Mt 8-"-' || Lie 4^'), and the lieavenly voices at the baptism and the TransKguration (Mt 3" \T^). Here, too, possibly lies the reason for Christ's use of the term in debates with the Jewish leaders (Jn 3'8 5'™- 8-^^-). The Messianic sense is obvious in St. Peter's confes- sion (Mt 16'") ; less so in that of the centurion (Mk 15™). The answer to the high priest's question was treated as blasphemy (Mt 26'^sf-), because by it He claimed more than Messiahship. St. John's state- ments enhance the feeling of the Synoptists. He points clearly to Christ's use of the term and in the solitary sense. He is careful in his use of names, and would hardly put into Christ's mouth a self-designation without some warrant of sanc- tion from His personal usage. But the Synoptists are not without traces of the same clearness. In Mb 22«-«, Mk 12'i=-37, Lk '20^'-", the inference is inevitable that the Messiah is the son of One more exalted than David.
What meaning tlid Clirist attach to the term? The above passage is signiiicant. He is not deny- ing Davidic descent. He affirms it (see on the other side Wellhausen, Evaiu/d. Marci). By His descent from David He satisfies one condition ex- pected in the Messiali. That fact, however, does not preclude Him from ^Mtisfyiiig further condi- tions not included in tlii> .\'ii >si.iiiic prophecy, evincing a power in Him wWwh ynimU to another and higher origin. This fuidicr scope in His filial relation is intimated in such passages as Mt IP' 16", Lk 10=^ Mt 3", Mk 4", Lk »\ Jn 8=5- as 1510 4^* etc.). He taught the disciples to call God 'our Father,' and called God His own Father in a special sense. He asserts that He alone adequately reveals and knows God. He suggests a special sonship in the parable of the Wicked Husbandman (Mk 12"^). The double strain is present in His consciousness. He is Son in the Messianic sense. He is also Son in a Divine sense : of absolute oneness with the Father. He has the mission of the former with its dignity : He has the infallible knowledge with perfect obedience of the latter. Both features emerge in the Synoptics as in the Fourth Gospel. Both are not justly interpreted in such a sense as suggests a merely ethical relation to God, a relation which others may actually jjossess or are destined to attain. In them tliere is the liasis of the ethical but of the essential as well. The Son- ship of Christ is human and historical yet solitary and transcendent.
St. Paul corroborates the Evangelic positions. The earlier Epistles contain a large amount of teaching as to the Person of Christ. We have lucid references to the Sonship : 1 Th l'», Ro S^- ^", 2 Co i\ Ro \\ 2 Co P^ff-, Gal 2™, Eph 4l^ Ro P, Gal 1'^ 4'', where, through the position assigned to Him on the one hand, and on the other the special Spirit dwelling in Him, equality with God is as- serted and Divine functions attributed. In one passage, 2 Th 2, Christ, while not named ' Son,' is regarded in His capacity as the opponent of Antichrist as a consubstantial representative of God. This idea in another context we have in Col l"-i5, He P-« 3'' etc.
A survey of the texts reveals a complex concep- tion, including (1) a Messianic predicate asserting the place of Christ as the complete antitype of the theocratic king; (2) .-in clliiral idciililv'iii the realization of Divine liolinr- in :i slaiiilr-s life; (3)aspiritual unity revealiim il-rit in ,1 |.rn.ct har- mony with the mind of (Jod an. I ;i p.'i te.l ohcdii.nce to His will, which were as much innate properties of His personality as achievemepts of His moral self. In adclition, theconviction of His iu-e-existentglorv*