Basic HTML Version
298
4. THE NAME SON OF GOD.
The name “Son of God” was variously applied in the Old
Testament: (a) to the people of Israel, Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; (b) to officials among Israel,
especially to the promised king of the house of David, II Sam. 7:14; Ps. 89:27; (c) to angels, Job
1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; 89:6; and (d) to pious people in general, Gen. 6:2; Ps. 73:15; Prov. 14:26.
Among Israel the name acquired theocratic significance. In the New Testament we find Jesus
appropriating the name, and others also ascribing it to Him. The name is applied to Jesus in four
different senses, which are not always kept distinct in Scripture but are sometimes combined.
The name is applied to Him:
a. In the official or Messianic sense,
as a description of the office rather than of the nature of
Christ. The Messiah could be called Son of God as God’s heir and representative. The demons
evidently understood the name Messianically, when they applied it to Jesus. It seems to have
this meaning also in Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32. Even the name, as uttered by the voice at the
baptism of Jesus and at His transfiguration, Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35,
can be so interpreted, but in all probability has a deeper meaning. There are several passages in
which the Messianic sense is combined with the trinitarian sense, cf. under (b).
b. In the trinitarian sense.
The name is sometimes used to denote the essential deity of Christ.
As such it points to a pre-existent sonship, which absolutely transcends the human life of Christ
and His official calling as Messiah. Instances of this use are found in Matt. 11:27; 14:28-33;
16:16, and parallels; 21:33-46, and parallels; 22:41-46; 26:63, and parallels. In some of these
cases the idea of the Messianic sonship also enters more or less. We find the ontological and
the Messianic sonship interwoven also in several Johannine passages, in which Jesus clearly
intimates that He is the Son of God, though He does not use the name, as in 6:69; 8:16,18,23;
10:15,30; 14:20, and so on. In the Epistles Christ is frequently designated as the Son of God in
the metaphysical sense, Rom. 1:3; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:1, and many other passages. In modern
liberal theology it is customary to deny the metaphysical sonship of Christ.
c. In the nativistic sense.
Christ is also called the Son of God in virtue of His supernatural birth.
The name is so applied to Him in the well known passage in the Gospel of Luke, in which the
origin of His human nature is ascribed to the direct, supernatural paternity of God, namely,
Luke 1:35. Dr. Vos also finds indications of this sense of the name in Matt. 1:18-24; John 1:13.
Naturally, this meaning of the name is also denied by modern liberal theology, which does not
believe in the virgin birth, nor in the supernatural conception of Christ.
d. In the ethico-religious sense.
It is in this sense that the name “sons” or “children of God” is
applied to believers in the New Testament. It is possible that we have an example of the
application of the name “Son of God” to Jesus in that ethico-religious sense in Matt. 17:24-27.
This depends on the question, whether Peter is here represented as also exempt from the