given that it was part of the biblical (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26–27) and early Jewish (4Q174; 4Q246) expectation that the messiah would be called God’s Son.7 Many New Testament scholars interpret the “Son of God” title in that functional or messianic sense. But there are others who have mounted compelling arguments for taking “Son of God” as meaning something far more than that he is the hoped-for human king from the line of David. Let us review the most compelling arguments.
Distinction Between “Messiah” and “Son of God”
The “Son of God” title cannot be reduced to “Son of David” or “Messiah” because it is used to explain what kind of Messiah he is. The phrase “the Christ, the Son of God” occurs six times in the Gospels (Matt 16:16; 26:63; Mark 1:1; 14:61; John 11:27; 20:31). The way the two titles, “the Christ” and “the Son of God,” are juxtaposed can be interpreted in different ways. It might mean that the two titles are synonyms. But another way of interpreting the juxtaposition is to take the second title as adding precision and definition to the first title. “The second title, ‘the Son of God,’ far from being a synonym for ‘the Messiah,’ indicates what sort of messianic expectation is in view: not the Messiah-Son-of-David, nor the Messiah as the son of any other human being, but rather the Messiah-Son-of-God.”8
Further evidence that the two titles, “Son of God” and “Messiah,” are not equivalent can be found in the account of the baptism of Jesus. At the beginning of his public ministry, immediately after being baptized by John, the voice from heaven declared: “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11; cp. Matt 3:17 || Luke 3:22). The baptism of Jesus is widely recognized as the moment when he was anointed by the Spirit in order to undertake his office as the Messiah. But according to the heavenly voice, he was already God’s beloved Son and pleasing to the Father before he was chosen and appointed to be the Messiah. Therefore, “sonship and messianic status are not synonymous. Rather, sonship . . . is antecedent to messiahship.”9
Jesus’ Question to the Pharisees
Jesus himself said that his identity is not exhausted by calling him the son of David. He asked the Pharisees, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They responded that the Messiah is “the son of David.” But Jesus asked, “How is it then that David calls him Lord,” quoting Ps 110:1. “If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matt 22:41–46 || Mark 12:35–37 || Luke 20:41–44). Matthew’s version of the story cries out for the obvious answer. Yes, he is the son of David, but that cannot be all he is, for what ancestor calls his descendant “Lord”? In response to Jesus’ rhetorical question (“Whose son is he?”), “there can be little doubt that Matthew and his readers would have supplied the answer, ‘the Son of God,’ and Mark may well have expected his readers to do the same.”10 On this reading the title “Son of God” must mean more than “son of David,” otherwise Jesus’ argument would make no sense.
Jesus’ Calling God His “Father”
Jesus characteristically spoke of God as his “Father” in a way that no merely human messiah could have.11 It is probable that Jesus used the Aramaic word Abba (Mark 14:36). The fact that Jesus addressed God as Abba made an impression on the first disciples and the very Aramaic word was treasured by the early church. This form of divine address, having limited parallels in Judaism, captures the heart of Jesus’ unique relationship to God.12 Jesus’ distinctive application of the term in prayer to God bespeaks a daring degree of filial intimacy with God indicative of his self-consciousness as God’s unique Son. It is true that Jesus also taught his disciples to call God “Father.” At first, this may seem to compromise the uniqueness of his relationship to the Father, but on further reflection it does not. He spoke of “my Father” and of “your Father” when speaking to the disciples, but never of “our Father” in a way that would include himself along with the disciples. Jesus spoke of his unique relationship with the Father (“no one knows the Father except the Son”) and went on to add that as the unique Son he mediates that filial relationship to others (“and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” [Matt 11:27 || Luke 10:22]). God is Jesus’ Father in a special way distinct from the way in which he is the disciples’ Father. The Jewish leaders understood that by calling God “his own Father” (patera idion) in that special sense, he was making himself equal with God (John 5:18).
The Jewish Charge of Blasphemy
Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God could not have been a mere messianic claim, since it was so provocative that it elicited the charge of blasphemy on the part of the Jewish leaders. This point receives particular emphasis in the Gospel of John:
• John 5:18: “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
• John 8:58–59: “Before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him.
• John 10:30–36: “I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Verse 33: “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Verse 36: “Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”
• John 19:7: “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”
Many scholars regard these statements in the Gospel of John as retrojections of the later conflict between the synagogue and the church leading to the parting of the ways. But the charge of blasphemy is not only found in the Gospel of John. It is also recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels in two separate but highly significant pericopes:
• Matt 9:3 || Mark 2:7 || Luke 5:21: “This man is blaspheming” (because he forgave the sins of the paralytic and only God can forgive sins).13
• Matt 26:63–66 || Mark 14:61–64 || Luke 22:67–71: “He has uttered blasphemy . . . he deserves death” (because he claimed that he was the Son of God, that he will be exalted at God’s right hand in fulfillment of Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13, and that he will come in the clouds of heaven to judge his judges).14
In the Jewish context of Jesus’ day, claiming to be the messiah would not have provoked the charge of blasphemy worthy of death. Simon bar Kosiba was a false messianic claimant (AD 131–135), but rather than being charged with blasphemy, one rabbi accepted his claims and the other rabbis simply mocked him without calling for his death.15 Apparently, there was something about Jesus’ claim to being “the Son of God” that was regarded as much worse than being a false messiah, something blasphemous that urgently demanded his execution. As the Gospel of John explains the reaction of the Jewish leadership, they thought he deserved death “because he has made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). It is also likely that the worship of Jesus as divine was one of the concerns that prompted Saul the Pharisee to be actively engaged in zealous and violent persecution of the first Christians.16
Jesus as the Revealer or Image of the Father
Jesus
