Literature. — Brif^gs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 492-496 ; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 434 ff. ; Schiirer, UJP ii. ii. § 29.
O. H. Gates. SON OF GOD.— As the word 'Christ,' which was at first a title, has come to be a proper name, this change being, indeed, accomplished even in the NT, so the title ' Son of God ' is now appro- priated to the Second Person of the Trinity ; and the ordinary reader of the Bible assumes this to be the meaning wherever he finds the phrase. He has only, however, to read with a little attention to perceive that this is an assumption which ought not to be made without inquiry, because in Scrip- ture there are many ' sons of God.' (1) The angels are thus designated, as when in the Book of Job (38'^) it is mentioned that at the dawn of crea- tion ' the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.' (2) The term is applied to the first man, when, in Lk 3, the genealogy of the Saviour is traced back to Adam, ' who,' it is added (v.^**), ' was the son of God.' And, if the general scope of Scripture may leave it questionable whether the same high title can be applied to all the first man's descendants, the authority of our Lord may be claimed, on the ground of the parable of the Prodigal Son, as deciding the question in the affirmative. (3) The Hebrew nation collectively is frequently thus desig- nated, as when, in the land of Midian, Jehovah sent Moses to Pharaoh with the message : ' Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn, and I say unto thee. Let my son go ' (Ex 42'^'-)- Whether, according to Scripture usage, it was applicable to individual Israelites, is not so clear, but probably it was ; for not only did the Jews, in speaking to Jesus, claim, ' We have one Father, even God ' ( Jn 8'*i), but Jesus Himself said, ' Let the children first be filled' (Mk 7'-^). (4) It was a title of the kings of Israel. Thus, in Ps 89^^'-, an ancient oracle is quoted in which Jehovah says of King David, ' He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation ; also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.' Similarly Jehovah says of King Solomon (2 S 7'^), ' I will be his Father, and he shall be to me a son.' (5) In the NT tlie title is conferred on all who believe in the Saviour. Thus, in the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John, it is said, ' But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to tliem that believe on his name' (Jn 1'^); and, in his First Epistle, the Evangelist exclaims, ' Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God ' (1 Jn 3^).
It would require some investigation to determine what is the reason for the bestowal of this lofty title in each of these cases, and in all probability the reasons might be different in the
different cases. In the case of the angels, the relation suggested may be that of the Creator to His creatures ; and this notion may cover also the application to men in general, who were made in 'the image of God.' The application to the nation of Israel refers undoubtedly to the choice which the grace of God made of the Hebrew people from among all the nations of the earth ; and in the Jewish kings this grace reached its climax. In the case of Christians, the reasons are obvious in the texts quoted in reference to them. It is usual to lay all the emphasis on the sentiments entertained by God towards those honoured with this title, as if it expressed solely His choice of them ; but Nosgen (op. cit. infr.) contends that in all cases at least some reason for the designation must lie in the qualities or history of the person designated ; and this is a contention which seems to have common sense on its side.
It will thus be seen that ' the son of God ' was a phrase much in use in the world before it was attached to our Lord ; and the question naturally arises, from which of its anterior uses it was that its transference to Him took place. In all pro- bability it was from the fourth mentioned above — that is, its ai)plication to the Jewish kings. If the application to the nation culminated in that to the kings, so the application to the kings culminated in Him who was to be the fulfilment of the regal idea in Israel. That is to say, the term is, in the first place, politico-Messianic. But it does not follow, as is too often assumed, that this is its only sense. On the contrary, in all the deeper passages where it occurs, whether in the Synoptics or in Jn., it points strongly to the personal qualities of Him who bears it, and to an intimate relationship with Him whose Son He is said to be. The political title rests upon personal qualities and experiences ; He is not the Son of God because He is the Messiah, but, on the contrary, He is the Messiah because He is the Son of God. That is to say, the term is ethico-religious. But it does not follow, as is often assumed, that because it is official-Messianic and ethico-religious it is not also physical or meta- physical. On the contrary, the closeness of the ethico-religious relation may be such as to demand a metaphysical relationship of an intimate and peculiar kind between Father and Son. It seems to be strangely forgotten in many quarters that ethical intimacy is, in all cases, limited by the closeness of metaphysical relationship ; the limita- tion of the intimacy between a dog and a man, for example, is due to the lack of metaphysical unity between them, whereas the closeness of sympathy and intimacy possible between a woman and a man is due to their metaphysical oneness. There is no reason whatever why ail the three kinds of relation- ship indicated above should not be united ; in point of fact, they often are. The kingship of a king, for example, may be, first, official, he being actually the reigning monarch ; secondly, personal, he pos- sessing the ethical qualities which become and secure his position ; thirdly, physical or meta- physical, because he is of the blood royal, and has in his composition the hereditary instincts of long descent. In like manner the Messiahship of Jesus may rest on a spiritual and ethical relationship to God ; but this may be of so intimate a kind as to demand a peculiar relationship to the Father physi- cally or metaphysically ; and in all the Gospels there is reference, more or less, to all the three.