Son of God

SON OF GOD? – What does it mean to say that Jesus is the “Son of God”?

As John F. O’Grady in The Four Gospels and the Jesus Tradition observes Christians would think that when the title Son of God is applied to Jesus it connotes divinity. That is to say Jesus is God because he is called the Son of God. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims under Son of God that when the title is used in the New Testament for Jesus it is applied “for expressing His Divinity”. These cannot be farther from the truth. In this article we shall see that Son of God is actually a title given to those who have a special, meritorious or superior connection/relationship to God as opposed to any other Tom, Dick or Harry. Nevertheless, many(not all) Christians might think that Son of God is a special and exclusive title designated to Jesus. They would be horribly wrong. Indeed, if it was used only for Jesus then the claim that it imparts the idea of divinity would hold some strength. Unfortunately, anyone who is familiar with the Bible will know that it is one of the most common titles used. If Son of God truly connotes divinity then dozens of people in the Bible would be Gods since they are called son/s of God.

Let us consider some of the many verses throughout the Bible where people are designated as son/s of God:

“Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” (Exodus 4:22)

“I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” (Jeremiah 31:9)

“….the Lord said to me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (Psalm 2:7)

Several Christian apologists whom I have had the pleasure of discussing this verse with tried to claim that Psalm 2:7 is actually in reference to Jesus and not David. Firstly, for the sake of argument let us agree for a moment that their assertion is correct. Even so, that dos not make Jesus God. In fact, if people wish to propose the assertion that Psalm 2:7 is speaking about Jesus as God’s son that will totally refute his alleged divinity. Some of you may be puzzled as to how that is. Do not be puzzled. It is actually quite simple. Do you see “the Lord” mentioned in the verse? The Lord or Adonai in Hebrew according to both Jews and Christians is a substitute for YHWH which is suppose to be God’s one and true name. Now, Jesus is suppose to be YHWH himself according to Chrisian Trinitarians. This is false if they were to argue for the first proposition that “son” in Psalm 2:7 refers to Jesus since the verse clearly shows that we are dealing with two distinct and separate entities namely, the Lord or YHWH and the “son”. YHWH in Hebrew is singular and so is the son which then gives us 2 beings. The first being YHWH makes the separate entity into His “son”. YHWH is promoting someone other than Himself to occupy this “sonship”. This means that Jesus has to be either YHWH or the one made YHWH’s son. We cannot opt for both together. If they do then they will have to explain the huge logical fallacy that comes with it. The simple way out is to agree with the Jews and Muslims on this that the verse actually refers to David.

This is qualified by Psalm 89:27 where we find the following verse about David:

“He shall call Me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ “

Let’s continue with a few more verses:

“I said, ‘You are gods ; you are all sons of the Most High.’ ” (Psalm 82:6 )

”I will be to him(Samuel) a father, and he shall be to Me a son.”(2 Samuel 7:14)

“…Adam, which was the Son of God.” (Luke 3:38 )

We have so far seen that numerous individuals were called son and sons of God. If one were to accept the Trinitarian premise that Son of God means God then there ought to be a pantheon of Gods and the Christians might as well become like Hindus or pagan Greeks.

The fact of the matter is the title Son of God does not mean anything more or less than a person who occupies a special position in the sight of God i.e. one who has a special relationship with God. It does not in any way connote divinity. Adam, David, Solomon, Jesus and numerous others had a special relationship to God. None of them are God in the sense of being the Creator of the world, the One in Genesis 1:1.

Thus, we find the following candid admissions,

“The term “Son of God” implies a unique relationship and a central role that is to be fulfilled in the working out of God’s purpose for his people rather than expressing some form of supernatural origin or the divininization of a human being. The link between “Son of God” and servant underscores the obedient role that this person is to fulfill in accomplishing God’s work.”

In other words, Son of God in the Biblical paradigm is an alternate for servanthood. It does not connote divinity! We find yet another admission from a reputable scholar who writes under the subject ‘Son of God’,

“When Luke used the title “Son of God” he seems to have predicated to Jesus a unique relationship to God. Gabriel declares to Mary that he son will be “the Son of God”(Lk 1:35), and when we couple this with the same declaration that the Holy Spirit will overshadow her (Lk 1:35), the uniqueness cannot be missed. No one can say much more than this. Whatever the title meant to Luke and his readers, it surely did not mean anything on a philosophical or metaphysical plane. Jesus was Son of God because of his special relationship to God, and he manifested this sonship by his willingness to live according to the will of God, even to the point of the acceptance of death.”

Was Jesus “Son of God” even before he was born? Was he eternally the son of God? people claim yes. They say that Jesus has always been the “Son of God” since before time, hence their calling Jesus “God, the Son”. Christian readers may be surprise by what I’m going to say next. Here goes. There is not a single shred of scriptual evidence that say that Jesus was the “Son of God” prior to Mary’s conception. In fact, we are told in Luke 1:35 the reason behind Jesus being called “Son of God”.

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”(Luke 1:35)

Pay very close attention to the word “therefore” after the mentioning of Jesus’ manner of conception. The Greek word there is διο or dio which is pronounced as deeah. The word literally means “because of”. The New American Standard Bible renders it closer to the Greek.

“The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”(Luke 1:35 NASB)

The verse is clearly telling us that because of the way Jesus is conceived, that is, supernaturally he will be called the “Son of God”. This is the first point in time in which according to the Luke he is called huios theos or “Son of God”. This means he was never eternally the “Son of God”.

Ergo what does it mean to say that Jesus is “the Son of God” ? Perhaps, if there is truly one thing that the King James Version got right was when it revised 3:26 and changed the Greek word paias from son to servant:

“To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities.”

Son of God = Servant of God