SON OF GOD [Gk. ho huiós theóu].
I. SELF-TESTIMONY OF JESUS
A. THE SON AND THE FATHER
B. THE SON AND ELECTION
1. IN ISRAEL
2. IN PRE-CHRISTIAN JUDAISM AND HELLENISM
3. THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON
C. THE SON AS MESSIAH
D. THE SON AS LORD
II. THE SON OF GOD AS THE THEME OF THE GOSPEL
A. THE SON AS SERVANT OF YAHWEH
B. THE SON AS RECONCILER
C. THE SON AS THE POWER OF GOD OVER SIN AND DEATH
III. THE SON OF GOD AS THE SOURCE OF A NEW HUMANITY
A. THE SON AND THE SPIRIT
B. THE SON FROM WHOM SONSHIP COMES
C. THE SON AND THE CONFESSION OF THE EARLY CHURCH
I. The Self-Testimony of Jesus
A. The Son and the Father Jesus’ sonship is fundamental to His address of God as Father
throughout the (Mk. 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). It speaks especially of Jesus’ unity of
will with the Father’s will. God acts not only through Him but with Him (Mk. 2:7 par).
The book of Hebrews intimately relates obedience to the sonship of Jesus; even though
He possesses intrinsic dignity as the Son, He learned obedience through suffering (5:8–
10).
The function of Jesus as the Son of God in John’s Gospel is based on this intimate
relationship. He possesses authority equal to the Father’s (Jn. 3:35f.; 5:18; 10:18, 30, 34–
36; 16:32; 17:10; 20:28), since the Father both bears witness of Him (5:31–39) and
glorifies Him (8:50–54; 11:4; 13:31f.; 16:14; 17:1, 5). The Fourth Gospel also presents
Jesus as sharing in the Father’s prerogatives to bring life and to judge (5:21–24). Mt.
11:25–27 speaks of the Father’s absolute sovereignty in revealing the Son, who in turn
exercises an absolute sovereignty in revealing the Father. This sovereignty extends to the
Son being the mediator of revelation to all persons.
Matthew 11:25–27 expresses the mutual knowledge between the Father and the Son.
This passage, whose authenticity has been intensively debated (see A. M. Hunter, NTS, 8
[1961/62], 221–249; I. H. Marshall, Interp, 21 (1967), 91–94), has been characterized as
a “meteor from the Johannine heaven” (K. von Hase, Die Geschichte Jesu [2nd ed., 1876],
p. 422) because of its close affinity with the Fourth Gospel. Some scholars have
attributed the saying to Hellenistic mysticism, others to Gnosticism. But its similarity
with the OT is equally striking: “For they shall all know me … and I will remember their
sin no more” (Jer. 31:34).
James Dunn persuasively argued that it is natural to see Mt. 11:27 as the beginning of
a long tradition that reached its fruition in John’s Gospel (Jesus and the Spirit, pp. 28f).
Dunn stated that the closest parallel is with wisdom literature, which speaks of the
righteous man who claims to have knowledge of God and calls himself a child of
Yahweh (Wisd. 2:13; cf. Sir. 4:10; 51:10). The strongest historical evidence for the
authenticity of Mt. 11:25–27 has been Jesus’ use of Aram ʾabbāʾ, “father” (see J.
Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus [SBT, 216; 1967], pp. 11–65). It is argued that the presence of
an untranslated Aramaic word points to a Palestinian origin and an early date.
Did Jesus consider Himself the Son of God? Apart from Mt. 11:27 Jesus’ use of “Son”
is not extensive, although numerous times He allows Himself to be addressed as such
(e.g., Mt. 4:3, 6; Mk. 1:11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; Lk. 3:22). Luke significantly portrays Jesus as
conscious of sonship before His baptism when He visits the temple, which He calls “my
Father’s house” (Lk. 2:49). When sonship is understood to refer to one who enjoys
intimacy and union with God, and also to one who reveals true knowledge of God, the
self-consciousness of Jesus reveals an instinctive sense of sonship even when He Himself
does not use the title.
The teaching on sonship as a christological theme yields striking, though not
necessarily contradictory, differences. Mark speaks of sonship in terms of mission,
suffering, and dying; Matthew in terms of a mission that fulfills the destiny of Israel,
based on Jesus’ conception by the power of the Spirit. In Luke, Jesus is the Son of God at
birth, through the Spirit. Hebrews unites a Platonic cosmology and Jewish eschatology;
and John emphasizes preexistence. These various perspectives illuminate rather than
obscure the central theme of sonship. Jesus is the divine Son who comes from God and
who, through His eschatological person, makes God’s fatherly presence available to all.
See GOD THE FATHER: NT II.
B. The Son and Election
1. In Israel “Son of God” in the OT can refer to a “heavenly court” of supernatural beings
(Gen. 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; 82:6; 89:6 [MT 7]), or to the mysterious “fourth
man” in the furnace who was like a “son of the gods” (Dnl. 3:25). But the most important
usage in the OT is for Israel and the Davidic king. Sonship is a fundamental part of the
election of Israel. It involves a legal claim (Mal. 1:6), and it also implies a love for Israel
as the “first-born” son (Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9). This becomes the background for the
prophets’ oracles of judgment. Israel the son proved ungrateful (Hos. 11:1f) and less
enlightened than mere beasts (Isa. 1:2f.; cf. 30:1, 9). The king is crowned David’s son
based on 2 S. 7:12–16. Only after he has received his full royal name (2 S. 7:9; 1 K. 1:47),
has been granted his first request (Ps. 2:8; 20:4 [MT 5]; 21:1, 3 [MT 2, 4]), and has been
invested with a scepter (110:2), can he begin his rule. The king takes the place of God on
earth, as His representative. This is a messianic function, as 2 S. 7:12–16 and Ps. 2:7
make clear. He is not God’s Son by nature, but he is nonetheless acknowledged by
Yahweh as one from whom Yahweh’s inheritance and authority come. This clearly
shows that sonship is not a natural right, nor is it a power of office. Rather, it is a
presence and power of God Himself bestowed through God’s free grace of election and
confirmation.
2. In Pre-Christian Judaism and Hellenism “Son of God” was not a common title for the
Messiah in pre-Christian Judaism. One exception is the messianic expectation at Qumrân
based on Ps. 2:7 and 2 S. 7:14 (4QFlor; cf. QSa1 2:11f.; 4Qps Dan A). R. Bultmann
supported the possibility that the Messiah could also be understood as a Son of God
because of the use of “son of God” in Ps. 2 as a royal title (Theology of the, I [Eng. tr.
1951], 50).
Sonship is used in an eschatological sense in Jub 1:22–25 (cf. 2:20; 19:29), which
depicts God as returning to His children. The Maccabean martyrs are called “children of
heaven” in 2 Macc. 7:34. The wisdom tradition intertwines “sonship” and ethics. In Sir.
4:1–10 God calls the righteous man who is a father to orphans a “son.” In Wisd. 2:13, 18
the righteous man is mocked as having been forsaken by his father (cf. Mt. 27:43). M.
Hengel has made much of the Jewish mystical book 3 Enoch, where Enoch, translated
into heaven, becomes God’s vizier and plenipotentiary. Metatron, “the prince of the
world,” and is even called “little Yahweh” (Son of God, p. 46). This, however, appears to
have been a fringe element of Judaism.
Many, especially R. Bultmann, have seen a Hellenistic “divine man” (theíos ané̄r)
miracle worker behind the “son of God” in the (p. 130). But O. Cullmann pointed out
Jesus’ rejection of the Hellenistic conception of divine sonship in the temptation story (pp.
276f). More recently, M. Hengel has shown that the Hellenistic mystery cults did not
know of a dying and rising son of God, and the gnostic redeemer myths were not fully
developed until the 2nd cent. A.D. (ibid., pp. 25–35). While it must be admitted that “son
of God” was used in a broad sense in the hellenistic world for anyone from a Greek
mythic hero to the emperor Augustus, this was not generally true for pre-Christian
Judaism.
3. The Only Begotten Son Although Luke (1:32f) bases Jesus’ sonship on 2 S. 7 and
Matthew (2:15) on Hos. 11:1, both speak of a virgin birth that is an eschatological new
creation by God. Since there is no human father, it is quite appropriate to call Jesus the
Son of God, conceived and filled with the creative power of the Holy Spirit. While it is
true that, linguistically, the takes over the title “Son of God” from the OT, K. Barth
reminds us that, of all the titles ascribed to Jesus, “Son of God” came to the forefront for
expressing His activity from the standpoint of its origin (CD IV/1, p. 206). In the Fourth
Gospel particularly Jesus is the one who has life in Himself (5:26), who has come in His
Father’s name (5:43), and who is the living bread that came down from heaven (6:50).
This origin of Jesus is not a subject of speculation but is assumed as the basis for His
intimate relation with the Father and as the source for His obedience to the Father. In
Hebrews, as in Phil. 2, preexistent, divine sonship and the humiliation of His passion are
stressed simultaneously (He. 2:18; 5:7; 12:2; 13:12f.; cf. Mk. 15:39; Jn. 3:14; 8:28; 19:5).
For Greek minds this was the “intolerable scandal,” even up to the 6th cent. A.D. In the
title “high priest” the historical passion of Jesus is united to the divine sonship, although
this seems paradoxical to the writer (He. 5:8). Only in the exalted Lord are these two
designations one and the same (4:14). See ONLY BEGOTTEN.
C. The Son as Messiah Is “the Son of God” an ontological or functional title? O.
Cullmann stimulated the discussion by stating, “It is only meaningful to speak of the Son
in view of God’s revelatory action, not in view of his being” (p. 293). This view is based
on his exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:28, and the eschatological subordination of all things to the
Father. J. Moltmann, however, has recently countered this view by suggesting that it is
the lordship of Christ over all things that is surrendered, not His divine sonship (Trinity
and Kingdom, [Eng. tr. 1981], pp. 92f). R. Bultmann, along with others, has suggested
that the early Christian use of Ps. 2 for Jesus as a “royal title” does not connote a
“supernatural being” but a messianic office. In this view the title “Son of God” is the
eschatological title of the bearer of salvation, not a description of Jesus as belonging in
essence to God. More recent scholarship, however, appears to agree with J. Dunn that
“the primary concept for Jesus does not appear to have been messiahship” (Jesus and the
Spirit, p. 59). His sense of sonship did not arise from regarding Himself as Messiah. On
the contrary, He seemed to resist the use of this title. As K. Barth has said in speaking to
this issue, Jesus did not first become the Son of God by being so for us. “He becomes it
from eternity; He becomes it as the eternal Son of the eternal Father” (CD, I/1, p. 427).
In the 1st cent. the Messiah is the anointed son of David who establishes the kingdom
of God in power. Mk. 12:35–37 makes clear that, according to Jesus, the Messiah must
be more than David’s son. He must be not only the son of David but also the Son of God.
This seems to be true when the two titles are combined in the high priest’s question to
Jesus, to which He replies in the affirmative (14:60–64). In the Transfiguration account,
when Jesus appears with Moses and Elijah (regarded as forerunners of the Messiah), He
is called “my beloved Son” (9:7). See MESSIAH IV.
D. The Son as Lord In the Epistles of Paul, Gk. huiós, “son” appears only 15 times
compared with 184 times for kyriós, “Lord.” While Paul seemingly assigns relatively
minor importance to the title “Son of God,” he does tend to unite “Son of God” with
“Lord,” in much the same way as Mt. 26:63f unites “Son of God” with “Son of man” to
connote the high, exalted, apocalyptic figure that Jesus appeared to represent. For Paul,
Jesus is “Lord” only because he is “Son of God.” Thus “sonship” is given soteriological
meaning, uniting ontology and function.
In Rom. 1:3f, the “Son” is the subject of the two-part confession that ends with
confessing Jesus as “Lord.” The Son’s lordship can also be related to “Kingdom,” for
God has transferred us from the dominion of darkness to the Kingdom of His Son (Col.
1:13).
II. The Son as the Theme of the Gospel
A. The Son as Servant of Yahweh The Son as “sent” from God is found in many different
strata in the. In the parable of the vineyard the son is sent after the servants are killed (Mk.
12:1–12), an obvious reference by Jesus to His own role. Jesus as the “sent one” is the
foundation of salvation in the Gospel of John (17:3, 18). The Son can do nothing apart
from the commission of the Father (5:19; 7:18). So also, in the pre-Pauline traditions
embodied in Gal. 4:4 and Rom. 8:3, the sending of the Son has a soteriological purpose.
For Paul the love of God is the motive in sending, which expresses itself finally in not
sparing His Son (Rom. 8:32). While some have argued that the Greek verbs used in Gal.
4:4 and Rom. 8:3 do not necessarily imply preexistence, others, including E. Schweizer,
contend that since the sending formula occurs only in Paul and John, who have welldeveloped concepts of preexistence, the preexistence of Jesus as divine Son of God
probably is implied (see esp J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making [1980], pp. 36–46).
If one views the sending of the Son as more than a divine commission, there is an
ontological foundation for this sending in the filial obedience of Jesus, which can then be
seen as the root of what it means for Jesus to be Son of God. In His subordination to the
Father, Jesus presents Himself as the one who is related eternally to the Father as the
Father is to Him. Thus, as K. Barth says, the divine sonship of Jesus reveals to us the one
God in His mode of being as the Son. “The One who eternally begets is never apart from
the One who is eternally begotten” (CD, IV/1, p. 209). Intrinsic to the soteriological
function as servant of Yahweh is the divine sonship of Jesus that reveals to us the
innermost being of God as one who possesses a divine humility and subordination as well
as exalted power and sovereign will. Thus the temporal obedience of sonship in Jesus
points to an eschatological obedience and sonship (1 Cor. 15:23–28).
B. The Son as Reconciler The supreme value of the death of the Son was the theme of
Paul’s gospel (Acts 9:20; 13:33). This was because the One who died was in such
intimacy with God (Rom. 5:10; 8:32; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:13f.). It was as God’s Son that He
lived and died. Through the sending of His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, God
condemned the rebellion of sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). To reconcile to Himself all things
is the goal of the sending of the “beloved Son,” who is the “image of the invisible God,
the first-born of all creation,” through whom and for whom “all things were created” (Col.
1:13, 15f, 20). The giving, or the giving up, of the Son on the part of the Father is not the
abandoning of the Son, but rather the carrying out of that divine love and purpose which
is proper to God in His mode of being as Son. Intrinsic to the “self-emptying” (Phil. 2:7)
of Jesus is the subordination of divine Sonship in being obedient, even unto death.
Through this death which the Son of God assumed, along with His humanity in the
Incarnation (He. 2:17f.; cf. 4:14–16), sinners have been delivered from the power of
death and have become children of God (Jn. 1:12). Jesus, as the Son who died, was raised,
and lives forever, expiates the sins of all His people, gives them life (1 Jn. 4:9f.; 5:11f.; cf.
Rom. 5:10), and cleanses them with His blood (1 Jn. 1:7).
C. The Son as the Power of God over Sin and Death The power of the Son of God is
expressed particularly in the enthronement tradition embodied in Rom. 1:3f. On the basis
of Ps. 2:7 and 110:1f, resurrection and enthronement are united in history with the Son of
David who is the Son of God. This leads to the emphasis on the resurrection of the Son of
God “in power” (Rom. 1:3). The qualitative difference that resurrection makes is related
to the ontological status and present efficacy of the Son. While some scholars are
cautious about attributing divine Sonship to Jesus before His resurrection, many agree
with V. Taylor that “Son of God,” “the Son,” and “My Son” are presented in the Gospels
not as postresurrection titles but as names used during His ministry (Names of Jesus
[1953], p. 59). The early Church clearly did not restrict His sonship to a postresurrection
status. Even in Paul, Rom. 1:3f is the only text that links “Son of God” with the
Resurrection. In fact, the title achieves a further significance in the Parousia (1 Thess.
1:10) and the consummation of all things to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28).
III. The Son as the Source of a New Humanity
A. The Son and the Spirit The coming of the Spirit upon Jesus and the opening of the
heavens during His baptism points to the eschatological revelation of the king of the last
times. Some scholars see Isa. 42:1 as the background of the baptism of Jesus: “In thee I
am well pleased,” viewing the beloved Son as the Servant of Yahweh. Others claim Ps.
2:7 as a more likely source. But conflation of the two concepts could well be seen in the
baptismal announcement and anointing. The Son bears the Spirit of God from baptism
onward, and ministers in the power of the Spirit. The Spirit henceforth becomes a “Spirit
of sonship” (Rom. 8:15–17), and those who receive the Spirit of Christ are adopted into
His own sonship, and become children of God (Jn. 1:12; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12f.; Gal. 3:26f.).
B. The Son from Whom Sonship Comes In one sense, all persons can be called the sons of
God through their descent from Adam (Lk. 3:38; Acts 17:28). The particular emphasis of
the, however, is on the sonship bestowed by the Son. The disciples of Jesus and
Christians in general are called “sons” (Mt. 17:26; He. 2:10; 12:5–8; cf. “children” in Jn.
1:12). Their origin is in God Himself (Jn. 1:13; 3:3; 1 Jn. 2:29; 3:9f.; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18),
because the Son has confessed them as brethren (He. 2:10f.). Their destiny is to be
conformed to the image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). This is a gift (1 Jn. 3:1), based on the
authority of the Son (Jn. 1:12). Sonship as a Christian privilege is a product of the Spirit
and baptism (3:5f), through which the eschatological divine sonship in the OT is fulfilled
(Hos. 1:10; Rom. 9:26). They are sons of God because they are “sons of the resurrection,”
and the Son Himself is their brother. This clearly shows that the eternal sonship of Jesus
is the continuing foundation and objective reality upon which Christian experience and
faith rests.
C. The Son and the Confession of the Early Church The essential confessional term of the
early Church is that Jesus is the Son of God. Although Paul does not use the title
frequently, he does use it strategically. It is fundamental to his theology of revelation and
his call to be an apostle (Gal. 1:15f.; cf. 1:1). There is little mention of the title in Acts
until Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:20). In the Gospels it is located in Peter’s confession (Mt.
16:16), as well as the climax to Mark’s Gospel (15:39; cf. 1:1; 14:61). Both demons and
pagans confess Him as Son of God (Mt. 8:29; Mk. 5:7; 15:39; Lk. 4:41). The title is an
integral part of an early trinitarian catechism in the Church (Mt. 28:19). In the Fourth
Gospel “Son of God” is equated with the confession of Jesus as the “King of Israel,” and
“Christ” (Jn. 1:49; 11:27; 20:31). Johannine literature also speaks of a participation, or
“abiding” in the being of the Son (1 Jn. 4:15). Faith in the Son equals faith in God (5:10).
To confess the Son is to confess the Father (2:23). True confession of God can be done
only in the “name of the Son” (3:23; 5:13).
Thus in confessing Jesus as the Son of God, early Christians acknowledged not only a
new revelation of God but a “new man.” G. D. Dragas suggested that, in acknowledging
Jesus as Son of God, the early Church saw the perfect image of a new humanity, formed
by an act of God, personally mediated through God the Spirit and centered on God the
Son (“The Eternal Son,” in T. F. Torrance, ed., The Incarnation, [1980], p. 22). In this
sense the sonship of Jesus was the subject of their faith and not merely object. It was
initially the subject of creed, doxology, liturgy, a new human existence, and therefore a
new theology. The human act of faith, obedience, and worship was coordinated initially
in Jesus Himself as the unique Son of God, and consequently in all those who were
adopted into His own unique divine sonship and became the church of God, His body.
See also PERSON OF CHRIST.
Bibliography.—O. Cullmann, Christology of the (Eng. tr., rev ed., 1975); DNTT, III,
634–648; R. H. Fuller, Foundations of Christology (1965); D. Guthrie, Theology (1981),
pp. 301–321; F. Hahn, Titles of Jesus in Christology (Eng. tr. 1969); J. Jeremias,
Theology (Eng. tr. 1971); G. E. Ladd, Theology of the (1974); I. H. Marshall, Interp, 21
(1967), 87–103; Origins of Christology (1976), pp. 111–125; Tyndale Bulletin, 18 (1967),
77–93; TDNT, VIII, s.v. υἱ ός, υἱ οθεσία (W. von Martitz, Fohrer, Schweizer, Lohse,
Schneemelcher); G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (1973), pp. 192–222.
R. S. ANDERSON1
1
Anderson, R. S. (1979–1988). Son of God. In (G. W. Bromiley, Ed.)The International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Wm. B. Eerdmans.