Basic HTML Version
the Kingdom, Matt. 8:12; 13:38; (k) sons of the bridechamber, Mark 2:19; (1) sons of
exhortation, Acts 4:36; (m) sons of thunder, Boanerges, Mark 3:17.”*
Notes:
(1) For the synonyms
and
see under
CHILD
. The difference
between believers as “children of God” and as “sons of God” is brought out in Rom.
8:14-21. The Spirit bears witness with their spirit that they are “children of God,” and, as
such, they are His heirs and joint-heirs with Christ. This stresses the fact of their spiritual
birth (vv. 16, 17). On the other hand, “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are
sons of God,” i.e., “these and no other.” Their conduct gives evidence of the dignity of
their relationship and their likeness to His character. (2)
8
is rendered “son” in John
4:51. For Acts 13:13, 26 see below.
-
7 5
In this title the word “Son” is used sometimes (a) of relationship, sometimes (b) of the
expression of character. “Thus, e.g., when the disciples so addressed Him, Matt. 14:33;
16:16; John 1:49, when the centurion so spoke of Him, Matt. 27:54, they probably meant
that (b) He was a manifestation of God in human form. But in such passages as Luke
1:32, 35; Acts 13:33, which refer to the humanity of the Lord Jesus, … the word is used
in sense (a).
“The Lord Jesus Himself used the full title on occasion, John 5:25; 9:35 [some mss.
have ‘the Son of Man’; see
RV
marg.]; 11:4, and on the more frequent occasions on which
He spoke of Himself as ‘the Son,’ the words are to be understood as an abbreviation of
‘the Son of God,’ not of ‘The Son of Man’; this latter He always expressed in full; see
Luke 10:22; John 5:19, etc.
“John uses both the longer and shorter forms of the title in his Gospel, see 3:16-18;
20:31, e.g., and in his Epistles; cf. Rev. 2:18. So does the writer of Hebrews, 1:2; 4:14;
6:6, etc. An eternal relation subsisting between the Son and the Father in the Godhead is
to be understood. That is to say, the Son of God, in His eternal relationship with the
Father, is not so entitled because He at any time began to derive His being from the
Father (in which case He could not be co-eternal with the Father), but because He is and
ever has been the expression of what the Father is; cf. John 14:9, ‘he that hath seen Me
hath seen the Father.’ The words of Heb. 1:3, ‘Who being the effulgence of His (God’s)
glory, and the very image of His (God’s) substance’ are a definition of what is meant by
‘Son of God.’ Thus absolute Godhead, not Godhead in a secondary or derived sense, is
intended in the title.Ӡ
Other titles of Christ as the “Son of God” are: “His Son,” 1 Thess. 1:10 (in Acts
13:13, 26,
RV
,
is rendered “servant”); “His own Son,” Rom. 8:32; “My beloved
Son,” Matt. 3:17; “His Only Begotten Son,” John 3:16; “the Son of His love,” Col. 1:13.
“The Son is the eternal object of the Father’s love, John 17:24, and the sole Revealer
of the Father’s character, John 1:14; Heb. 1:3. The words, ‘Father’ and ‘Son,’ are never in
the NT so used as to suggest that the Father existed before the Son; the Prologue to the
* From
Notes on Galatians,
by Hogg and Vine, pp. 167- 169, and on
Thessalonians,
pp.
158. 159.
† From
Notes on Galatians,
by Hogg and Vine, pp. 99, 100.