2. Arising out of the notion of the filial relation in its natural sense, we have the idiomatic use of the phrase ' son of as a familiar characteristic of the Gospel phraseology. A j)oetic feeling underlies the description of a wise man as a ' son of wisdom,' and at the same time its appropriateness is self- evident. vl6s and reKvov both occur in this con- nexion, and instances of the use of the idiom found in the Gospels may be grouped as follows : (a) = be- longing to, connected with, or destined for. Persons are described as sons 'of the kingdom' (Mt 8^^ 13»8) ; ' of this world ' (age) (Lk \& 20^) ; ' of the bridechamber ' (Mk 2^^ \\) ; ' of Jerusalem ' ( = inhabit- ants) (Mt 233^); 'of the Pharisees' (followers, adherents, Mt \2'"=\± IP''): 'of the evil one' (Mt 13^8 ; Twentieth Cent. NT renders simply ' the wicked,' evading a personal significance in tov TTovripod) ; 'of Gehenna' (Mt 23^5); 'of i^erdition ' (Jn 17^2); 'of the resurrection' (Lk 203«). (b) = characterized by certain qualities : ' .sons of thun- der' (Mk 31''); 'of peace' (Lk 10«) ; 'of light' (Jn 1238); <of ^visdom' (riKva, Mt IP^^Lk 7^=) ; as similarly 'of consolation' in Ac 4^" (this without reference to the correctness of the etymology indi- cated), [c) — descendants : 'sons of them that slew the prophets ' (Mt 23^1) ; ' of Israel ' (Mt 27^ Lk V^) ; 'of Abraham ' (reVm, Jn 83« ; u»s, Lk 19«, cf. 131").
Deissmann {hihle Studies, pp. 161-166) labours to modify the common explanation of such circumlocutory forms as Hebra- isms and due to 'the Oriental spirit of language' (Buttmann, quoted in he. cit.). As features of NT diction he is v\illing to see in them a ' Hebraism of translation ' (due to Semitic ori- ginals rather than to a Hebraistic style or habit in the writers
SON OF DAVID
SON OF DAVID
653
themselves), but is eager to maintain that such constructions are not foreign to the genius of Greek. He is not, however, entirely successful. Of course, the use of the phrase 'sons of as = inhabitants or descendants, may be widely paralleled in various languages (as, e.g., the Homeric uh; ' Ax«-''^^ = ' A.Z'*'"'') '■, but in manifold other uses, especially as in {h) above, the case is different. The expression ulo; rix-'i' (in WoxaLceJilitis fortuna;) is noteworthy, but 'one swallow does not make a summer'; and, moreover, Plato s use of ixyovoi, specially adduced by Deissmaiin, hardly affords a true parallel. In Phcedi: 275 1), e.g., Tx 'Cuypxcfia,; ixyoiot., denoting the productions of art, a painter's works, falls short of such uses as are indicated in (O), whereby personal qualities are described. The expression is, on the other hand, so characteristic of Semitic speech as to amount to an idiom, and the OT writings abound in it. Its occurrence in the NT is best explained in this connexion : and it is difficult to think that it might have occurred in exactly the same way had the writers been writing in an independent Greek style.
3. An arresting feature in the teaching of Jesus is His description of men as the sons (wot, r^Kva) of God. The most conspicuous name that He uses for God in His relation to men is that of ' Father,' usually with the Jewish addition of ' in heaven ' or ' heavenly.' Some of His most noticeable parables and illustrative sayings are based on the relation of father and son as best representing the relation between God and man (see, e.r/., Lk 15'^"'-, Mt 7^°")- See artt. Children of God, Son of God.
Notice may be taken of the curious phrasing of Lk 20^6 ulo! I'liriv Oeoij TYis u.ya.(TTa.(Tia; v\o\ itTi;. This per sc seems to limit the description ' sons of God ' to those who are accounted worthy to attain the resurrection life (v.35). They 'are sons of God through being sons of the Resurrection' (Weymouth). Or per- haps we ma}' e(]ually well interpret by saying that the fact of their having risen shows that they are God's sons. It has to be pointed out, however, that this is part of an expansion of our Lord's reply to the Sadducees quite peculiar to Lk., pre- senting a striking divergence from the Synoptic parallels. It seems to be merely an amplification of the term iVayysAo/, itself a Lukan «Ta| Xiy. for the simpler i; kyyiXoi of Mt. and Mk. At any rate, it cannot be pressed so as to conflict with the general representation of men as being all God's sons in one way and another, found so often in the Gospels. A connexion with Ro 819 may be suggested (cf also phrasing in Ro 1^).
4. The term ' son ' is used of Jesus Himself in various ways. (^'0 In the ordinary sense of the word He is described as ' the son of Joseph ' and ' the son of Mary.' See Mk 6=*=Mt 1355 = Lk 4^2. Jn 6*^ (cf. 1'*^) is also in close agreement with Lk 4-^, with the interesting addition, ' whose father and mother we know.' (This is one of the smaller points in which the Johannine Gospel stands on a basis of common tradition with the Synoptics). The expression in Mt 13^^ 6 rov tcktovo% vlb^, may possibly have originally meant no more than 6 re/c- Tojv in Mk 6*. Cheyne's conjecture, that 'Jesus the son of Joseph ' may mean ' Jesus a member of the house of Joseph' {EB'i ii. 2598), may be ingenious, but is an unnecessary departure from tradition. We cannot arbitrarily jiush aside the plain suggestions of tlie Birth-narratives and the genealogies as to the personality of Joseph in this connexion.