"Son of God"

SON OF GOD¹

pdf

Dr. Paul Manuel—1995

The title “Son of God,” as it is used of Jesus, is often considered to be a reference to his deity. Indeed, there is ample evidence for this doctrine on other grounds.² Nevertheless, an examination of the grammatical and historical data does not support such a definition of this phrase.

The Hebrew construct “son(s) of” with other objects suggests that such specificity in meaning is more than the phrase will bear. The bound form of stands in a relationship to whatever free form that follows in one of six ways, several of which appear in Matthew (marked by asterisks). Only context can determine which way the author intends, and some of the examples offered below may fit in more than one category. Rarely, if at all, does the meaning remain the same without the bound form (only in IV.B. and IV.A.). That is, “son(s) of X” is not, as a rule, the equivalent of “X” alone.

I. Physical

A. Related by immediate descent³

1. Eleazar, son of Aaron
2. * Zacharias, son of Barachias
3. * James and John, sons of Zebedee

B. Related by distant descent⁴

1. Mephibosheth, (grand)son of Saul
2. * Jesus, son of David

II. Temporal

A. Age of the father⁵

1. Son of (one’s) youth
2. Son of (one’s) old age

B. Age of the person or thing⁶

1. Son of 500 years
2. Son of a night (= 1 night old)

III. Attribution

A. Mark of one’s character⁷

1. Son of a king (= regal)
2. Son of murdering (= murderer)
3. * Sons of the evil one (= evil)
4. * Sons of God or Most High (= godly?)

B. Mark of one’s ability⁸

1. Son of fruit (= fruitful)
2. Son of understanding (= intelligent)
3. Son of oil (= fertile)

IV. Class(ification)

A. Member(s) of a particular social group (denotes status)⁹

1. Son of the king (= prince)
2. Son of foreignness (= foreigner)
3. Sons of the people (= commoners)
4. Sons of the poor (= paupers)
5. Sons of the exile (= deportees)
6. * Sons of the bridegroom (= guests)

B. Member(s) of a particular professional group (denotes occupation)¹⁰

1. Son of perfumers
2. Sons of the prophets
3. Sons of the priests
4. * Son of the carpenter (= scholar[?])¹¹

C. Member(s) of a particular people group (denotes tribal or national affiliation)¹²

1. * Sons of Israel
2. Sons of Esau
3. Sons of her people (= countrymen)

D. Member(s) of a particular “biological” group (denotes species)¹³

1. Son of man(kind) (= homo sapien)¹⁴
2. * Son of cattle (= one of the cow species, an individual cow)
3. Sons of sheep (= several of the sheep species)
4. * Son of an ass (= one of the ass species, an individual ass)

V. Local

A. Of a place or region¹⁵

1. Sons of Bethlehem (= inhabitants of)
2. Sons of Bashan (= rams pastured in)

B. Of a realm¹⁶

1. * Sons of the kingdom (= citizens of)
2. * Son of hell (= destined for)

VI. Figurative

A. Identification by concrete association¹⁷

1. Sons of a bow (= arrows)
2. Sons of oil (= anointed leaders)
3. Sons of the house (= servants)

B. Identification by abstract association¹⁸

1. Son of death (= condemned)
2. Sons of pledges (= hostages)

Because there are no examples of a difference in category between the use of the singular “son” and the plural “sons” with the same object, “son of God” and “sons of God” may fall in the same category. If that is the case, and unless the term represents some unique usage of “son(s) of,” it could only fit in category III. (attribution) and probably only in subsection A. (as a mark of one’s character). With none of these uses is it possible to drop the bound form and still retain the meaning of the phrase in its context. For example, “sons of a king” in Judg 8:18 cannot be simply “king”; (apart from the problem of the singular) Gideon’s sons did not hold that office, and “king” is only a designation of ‘regal-like’ in the construct state (BDB:573c). Similarly, “sons of God” in Gen 6:2 and Matt 5:9 cannot mean “God” without implying some form of polytheism. Therefore, it would be completely out of keeping with the normal use of “son(s) of” (as well as with the theological understanding of the day) if the references to “son of God” in Dan 7:13 and Matt 4:3 (etc.) meant more than “one who possesses some divine characteristic(s).”

In addition to these grammatical considerations, historical information plays a role in determining meaning and suggests there may indeed be a difference between the singular and plural uses of the phrase, with the singular having a specialized, technical meaning. Old Trstament passages that speak about the messianic king as God’s son refer figuratively to adoption.¹⁹ At the anointing ceremony, the king becomes the “Son of God” and acts as His regent, ruling in His stead. The author of Ps 2 describes this relationship.²⁰

Ps 2:2 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One…. 5 Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, 6 "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." …7b "You are my Son; today I have become your Father…. 12a Kiss the Son, lest he be angry….

The author of Hebrews identifies Jesus with the “son” here and underscores the adoption motif by quoting God’s promise to David.

Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father [Ps 2:7]"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" [2 Sam 7:14]?

Several uses of “son of God” include royal allusions, which support this singular meaning of adoption.²¹

In any case, neither grammatical nor historical data supports an understanding of “Son of God” as a direct reference to deity. That notion is a post-New Testament Christian innovation that has been imposed on the biblical text. To be sure, there are explicit references to Jesus’ deity,²² but this particular phrase is not one of them.

For the Bibliography and Endnotes, see the pdf here.