1. The Synoptics. — In the Synoptics Jesus does not, of His own motion, call Himself in so many words ' the Son of God.' But the title is applied to Him in about twelve passages in Mt. and fully lialf that number each in Mk. and Lk., and in several of these cases He treats this application in such a way as to show that He adopts it. On several occasions (six times in Mt., once in Mk., thrice in Lk. ) He denominates Himself ' the Son ' in such a way as to prove unmistakably that He regards Himself as ' the Son of God ' ; and many times in all three Gospels (over a score of times in Mt., thrice in Mk., nine times in Lk.) He in the same way refers to God as His Father. (The
SON OF GOD
SON OF GOD
655
quotations in detail will be found on p. 86 of Stalker's Christology of Jesus, mentioned below in the List of Literature).
(1) Beyschlag observes {NT Theol. 1. 68) that the occurrence of the term in the mouths of others shows that it has its roots in the OT and was already current in Israel, and therefore, that for the sense in wiiieh Jesus applied it to Himself we must go back to the OT. It is also usual to state that it is employed in the pseudepigraphic litera- ture of the period between the OT and the NT as a synonym for the Messiah. If, however, tiie only two passages of this sort supplied by Dalman (op. cit. infr. ) be referred to, it will be found that this notion rests on a very slender basis. If the TR of jMk P be correct, — ' the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,' — it would be rash to limit the Evangelist's intention to the Messiahship ; but the reading is suspected. In Lk P^ the reason why Jesus is to be called ' the Son of God ' is supplied in the memorable statement to Mary, ' The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.' This is a physical explanation of the term, which it is rather surprising never to find elsewhere. The nearest approach to it in the Gospels would be the exclamation of the centurion at the Cross, ' Truly tliis was the Son of God ' (Mk 15»«) ; but it is dubious what a heathen may have meant by such an observation.
Still more dubious, one would suppose, must it remain what the demoniacs intended by calling Jesus by this title, though it is usually taken for granted that they must have used it in the Messianic sense, because they also sometimes acknowledged Him as the Messiah. When Satan, in the Temptation, played with the title, he was obviously referring back to the voice which, at the Jordan during the Baptism, recognized Jesus as ' the Son of God ' ; but how much that voice in- tended, or how much the Tempter understood of what it meant, might require considerable discus- sion.
When ' they that were in the ship ' on the occasion when Jesus stilled the tempest and rescued St. Peter from the sea, 'came and worshipped him,' saying, ' Of a truth thou art the Son of God ' (Mt 14^^), the most natural interpretation may be that they were acknowledging Him as the Messiah. If they were, they anticipated, in a remarkable manner, the subsequent confession at Csesarea Philippi ; and this raises a doubt which may in- cline us to understand their language rather as an involuntary recognition of the Divine in Jesus, occasioned by the sight of a remarkable miracle.
Undoubtedly tlie most convincing case for the identity of meaning in the terms ' the Messiah ' and ' the Son of God ' is the confession of the Twelve, through the lips of St. Peter, at Cjesarea Philippi ; because, whereas St. Matthew reports them as confessing, ' Thou art the Clirist, the Son of the living God' (16'®), the other two Evangelists omit the second piirase (Mk 8^9, Lk O^"). Now, it is argued, they could not have omitted this, had it contained a momentous addition to the acknow- ledgment of the Messiahship ; against which the only caveat that can be hinted is that there are many examples to prove that it is perilous to rest much on the silence of one or more of the Gospels.
Anotlier passage which is confidently appealed to as demonstrating the identity of meaning between the two terms, is tiie demand addressed by the high priest to Jesus, on His trial, to say whether He Avere ' the Christ, the Son of God.' Yet, in report- ing this incident, St. Luke excites doubt as to the identity, because he represents Him as being asked first .simply if He were 'the Christ'; but when He wound up His reply with the imposing words,
' Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God,' they proceeded, ' Art thou, then, the Son of God?' and the affirmative answer to this second question seems to have shocked and irritated them far more than the answer to the first, occasioning a tempest of rage and insult in all present, with a unanimous agree- ment that He had been guilty of blasphemy (Lk 22®**). H. J. Holtzmann, who writes with extra- ordinary feeling on this subject, recently, in a review in tiie Theologische Litercdurzeituyig , declaring it to be a shame that Protestant scholars should even doubt the identity, affirms that ' the blasjihemy can only have been found in the fact that a man belonging to the lower classes, one openly forsaken of God and going forward to a shameful death, should have dared to represent himself as the object and fulfilment of all the Divine promises given to the nation ' ; but the blasphemy is far more obvious if the claim to be ' the Son of God ' was understood to mean more than even Messiah- ship.