In a previous post, I addressed Part 1 of the subject of the meaning of 'Son of God' in the Bible and Extra-Biblical Literature. In this second part I would like to expand further on this topic by examining the use of son of God language in Rabbinic Judaism, the Targums, and the New Testament. I will also address the term "Son of Man" as it is used in the Old Testament, but also as it used especially by Jesus as a self-designation. I will then draw this subject to a close by commenting on the Qur'an's view on the usage of 'son' language in reference to Jesus and then attempt to steer the argument forward in Christian-Muslim dialogue.
Rabbinic Judaism
In the rabbinic writings such as Sukkah 52a, Rabbi Nathan (ca. A.D. 160)
refers Psalm 89:27 to the Messiah where the king is spoken of as God’s
“firstborn”. Some rabbis like Honi “the circle drawer” known for his miracles (first century B.C.), had a reputation of having intimate sonship with God
(Tann. 3:8). This would be one explanation for his reported miracles. Another
rabbi by the name of Hanina ben Dosa, who lived a generation after Jesus
claimed that a heavenly voice addressed him as “my son Hanina” (b. Tann 24b).
God is said to appear to Eleazer ben Pedath in a dream and says, “Eleazer, my
son…” (b.Tann 25a). On a midrash of the death of Moses, it states, “The Holy
One immediately began to soothe him and said to him, ‘My son Moses…” (Jellinek,
Bet ha-Midrash, I, 121).
The High Priest Ishmael ben
Elisha had a vision of God in the heavenly Holy of Holies and God said to Ishmael,
“Ishmael my son, bless me” (Ber 7a).
It is clear from these rabbinic
texts that the use of the term ‘son of God’ was used of someone who shared a
close contact with God in a relational context. Notice there is no aversion at
all to the use of the term ‘son of God’ and there is no understanding of this
term in a sexual context where God needs a wife or a consort for someone to be
called His son.
The Targums
The Targums were Aramaic
paraphrases of the OT. They were not really translations as they expanded upon
the text of the Hebrew Bible for theological and didactic purposes. It is
important to note that the Targums as such, are not a replacement for the Hebrew Bible. They are intended to be
more like commentaries in Aramaic on the Hebrew text which Jews considered
sacred and inspired.For instance, whenever the Bible spoke about God creating,
the Targum would say, “The Word [Memra in
Aramaic] of the Lord” created. The phrase “Word of the Lord” is usually used as
a substitute for “God”. The writers of the Targums also tried to safeguard
God’s transcendence by using such substitutes as “Word of the Lord” and “Glory
of the Lord” to describe any contact with the physical world. This
understanding of course has enormous ramifications when we consider that it is
this concept of the “Word of the Lord” that sets the backdrop for John’s
gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God…we have seen his glory” (John 1:1, 14).
In terms of the usage of son of
God, the Targums were hesitant and cautious in using this term as a literal term. They were not opposed to
its usage, but only to the misunderstanding
of the term as literal in a sexual context. As Christianity began to
expand, the Jewish religious leaders began to tone down the use of son of God
for the Messiah, and for obvious reasons. Christians were using OT texts which
spoke about the Messiah as the son of God. The view of the Messiah in the first
century was one of a divine pre-existent person who would usher in God’s kingdom.
After the second century A.D. rabbinic Judaism (in reaction to the expansion of
Christianity) reduced the Messiah to a mere human son of David, and stripped
him of his divinity, the view which is currently held today in Judaism.
An example of the Targum’s use of
son of God language is seen in its use of 2 Samuel 7:14, 1 Chronicles 17:13,
and Psalm 2:7. It avoids any literalistic interpretation by rendering 1
Chronicles 17:13 as, “I will love him as
a father loves a son, and he will love me as a son loves his father” (italics mine). Also in Psalm 2:7, the
Targum renders the passage as, “Beloved
as a son is to his father you are to Me” (italics mine). Notice the attempt to avoid a literal reading
of the term “son”. Jews have always understood that when the language of son is
used towards God it is not to be taken literally. However, for some strange
reason, the Qur’an accuses Jews (and Christians) of using the language of
sonship to God as literal, the very thing the Targums argue against!
The New Testament
As we come to the New Testament
(hereafter NT), we come to this collection of texts with all the background we
have just examined above. There is no doubt that sonship language was deeply
rooted already in the OT, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha, rabbinic texts, and the Targums. Thus, it will be no surprise
to find this language in the NT. It is in fact, widely attested in the NT. The
question now before us is the following, how did Jesus use the term “son” of
Himself, and what did the NT writers understand by the use of this ‘son’
language?
In the NT, it is clear Jesus is
also called the Son of God. Does this term carry a different meaning from what
we saw above? The Jews by the time of the NT, regarded themselves as God’s children
(John 8:41). This as we saw is already well established in the OT (Exodus
4:22-23; Deuteronomy 14:1). However, when Jesus spoke of Himself as Son of God
and spoke of God as His Father, His hearers became angry and irate. Why was
this so? Jesus spoke of God as His Father in a special and unique way.
God identified Jesus as His Son
at His baptism (“You are my beloved Son”; Mark 1:11), and at His
transfiguration (Mark 9:7). Jesus spoke of God as “My Father” (John 5:17), and
He claimed some unique privileges such as raising the dead as the Father does,
giving eternal life and so on (John 5:21; 10:28-30). He went so far as to say
that all should honor the Son, just as they honor the Father indicating that
the Father and Son were worthy of equal honor (John 5:23). There is clearly a
different meaning in the way Jesus employs the word “Son”. Notice the
following:
“All things have been handed over
to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one
knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal
him” (Matthew 11:27; cf. Luke 10:22)
“I and the Father are one”. (John
10:30, 33, 36)
Jesus as the Son has intimate
knowledge of the Father and reserves the sovereign right to reveal the Father. The
use of this language has clearly transcended the sonship language we saw above.
Notice the real reason why Jesus
calling God His Father caused a lot problems for His hearers:
“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 5:18; italics mine).
It is clear that Jesus
understands Himself as Son of God in a way that is unparalleled, no one shares
that privilege except Jesus Himself and that is because of His identity. He is
the eternal Son of God, He is the eternal Word who pre-existed and came into
the world (John 1:1-3, 10, 14; 17:5).
Notice that the Jews understood
the claim to be the Son of God to be blasphemous:
“The Jews answered him [Pilate],
"We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God”
(John 19:7; italics mine).
We have seen already that the Jews had no problem with the term “son of God”. Why did they take such offence to Jesus using that title?
We have seen already that the Jews had no problem with the term “son of God”. Why did they take such offence to Jesus using that title?
When Jesus is called Son of God,
it is clearly used in a very special way. Jesus is not just the Son of God like
Israel. or the Israelite king, or Adam, He is the “unique,” “one and only” Son
of God. The NT underscores this point by using the Greek word monogenes in reference to Jesus (John
1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; cf. Hebrews 11:17). This word is made up of two
Greek words, monos (‘one’) and genos (“kind”), and it means “one of a
kind,” “unique,” “only”. In fact, in John’s gospel the word “son” (huios) is only used of Jesus to describe his relationship with the Father as
God’s Son. Believers in John’s gospel are called teknon / “children” of God (John 1:12; 8:39; 11:52; 13:33; 21:5).
We see the same pattern in the letters of John. Only Jesus is “Son,” believers
are “children” (the King James Version unfortunately blurs this distinction in
the gospel of John and the letters of John by translating teknon as “sons” instead of “children” as the vast number of Bible
translations do). This distinction is unique to John’s writings (except Revelation)
as the other NT texts use both “sons” and “children” to refer to believers.
Jesus as we noted above is the
eternal Son of God who came into the world. He has always been in an eternal
relationship with the Father. He had no beginning as the Son. He was in the beginning, but He became human (John 1:14). God did not
need a consort or a wife for Jesus to be His Son. Why? Because He as the
eternal Son, He always existed with the Father (John 17:5).
Christian Believers
But are not believers also sons
or children of God? Yes, but not the same way as Jesus. Believers are adopted as sons of God. This is made
clear in the following passages:
“For you did not receive the
spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry,
"Abba! Father!" (Romans 8:15; italics mine).
4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent
forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those
who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has
sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
(Galatians 4:4-6; italics mine).
Notice in the second passage, the
Son and the Spirit of the Son are “sent” by God the Father. The Son was sent
forth into the world to be born of a woman, and this presupposes that the Son
pre-existed. This recalls Isaiah 9:6 that the child that is born, is a son who
is given. Notice as well that “the
Spirit of his Son” is also sent into our hearts. Here the Spirit of the Son is
spoken of in terms of the Holy Spirit (cf. Romans 8:9). This is the language of
deity.
Son of Man
A favorite title of Jesus that He
used as a self-designation, was the “Son of Man”. This word can be used in 2
ways in the Bible, especially the OT. The first way it can be used is to mean
just a human being as it used in Ezekiel 2:1 (used throughout Ezekiel), and
Daniel 8:17. The second way it can be used is to refer to a heavenly divine being mentioned in Daniel 7:13-14. How did Jesus
use that term? He used it the way Daniel 7:13-14 used it. The text of Daniel
7:13-14 reads,
13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the
clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient
of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given
dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass
away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Notice Jesus’ words at His trial:
61 But he remained silent and made
no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son
of the Blessed?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am, and you will
see the Son of Man seated at the right
hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." 63
And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do
we need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy.
What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death (Mark 14:61-64; italics mine)
Notice the question to Jesus also
included “Are you the Son of the Blessed? [a substitute term for ‘God’]”.
Notice Jesus answered,“ I am”. Jesus understood Himself to be the Son of God in
this passage. Notice he is charged with “blasphemy. Blasphemy which included
claiming to be God brought the death penalty (Leviticus 24:16). The reference
to “coming with the clouds” is interesting as this term was used only of a divine being.
In the ancient Near East, the
gods were said to come or ride with the clouds of heaven. For instance, Baal in
the Ugaritic literature is referred to frequently as “the Rider of the Clouds”.
Notice in the Old Testament, Yahweh is said to be the One who rides the clouds:
“There is none like God, O
Jeshurun [an affectionate term used of Israel], who rides through the heavens to your help, through the skies in
his majesty” (Deuteronomy 33:26; italics mine).
“to him [God] who rides in the heavens, the ancient
heavens; behold, he sends out his voice, his mighty voice” (Psalm 68:33;
italics mine).
“He [God] lays the beams of his
chambers on the waters; he makes the
clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings of the wind” (Psalm 104:3; italics
mine)
“An oracle concerning Egypt.
Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift
cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his
presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them” (Isaiah 19:1; italics
mine).
It is clear from this usage that
the cloud rider is a divine being. This phrase is used 4 times of God, but, it
also used of the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14, the very figure that Jesus
identified Himself with. Now we can understand why the high priest accused
Jesus of blasphemy, He was claiming to be the divine person of Daniel 7, the
One who in Second Temple Judaism was believed to be the second Yahweh.
The divine nature of the Son of
Man in Daniel is further reinforced by the fact that in Daniel 7:14, 27, this
Son of Man is worshipped by all the nations. The NIV of Daniel 7:14, 27
actually uses the words “worshiped,” and “worship” whereas other translations
use the word “served,” and “serve”. In a religious context as we see in Daniel
7, serving a divine being translates into worship. The Aramaic word used here
is palach (Daniel 2:4b-7:28 is all in
Aramaic) and every time it appears in the book of Daniel, it is always used in a religious context dealing
with service or worship to the gods or the true God (Daniel 3:12, 14, 17-18,
28; 6:17, 21). It is also used as just mentioned, in reference to the Son of
Man who will be worshipped by the nations.
Is this beginning to sound all
too familiar when we look at the person of Jesus in the NT and the
fact that from the earliest times, the risen Jesus was already worshipped in
the early church? For readers who are interested in researching this subject at a deeper level, I would direct you to my book on this subject. Did the church, or the apostle Paul make this up, or did they
get this information from the OT? I think the answer is obvious. The
Sonship of Jesus and the worship of the Son of Man was already deeply rooted in
the OT.
Conclusion
This clearly poses some serious
problems for our Muslim friends. The Qur’an 6:101 says, “To Him is due the
primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How
can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath
full knowledge of all things” (Yusuf Ali; italics mine)
“And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son”
(Qur’an 72:3; Yusuf Ali’ italics mine)
Do Christians
believe according to the Bible that in order for God to have a son He needs a
wife or consort?? The Bible as we have seen, does not teach this because God
does not have a human body to procreate children. God is Spirit and thus is
incorporeal (John 4:24). God doesn’t have a wife. It was actually the ancient
pagans who attributed goddesses as the wives of the gods. Jews and Christians
do not do this. There is a serious misunderstanding because the passages above
from the Qur’an do not accurately reflect what Christians believe.
It is interesting
that the Qur’an also uses the language of “son” an even “mother” without
implying that these terms are to be taken literally. The Qur’an refers to a traveler as waibni alssabeeli, literally,
“a son of the road” (Qur’an 4:36). I have not met one Muslim to date who
believes that this passage actually means that the road fathers sons and that a traveler is begotten by the road. This is clearly metaphorical language.
Consider Qur’an 13:39, “God doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book [ommu alkitabi]” (Yusuf Ali;
italics mine). The heavenly tablets which are the source of the Qur’an are
called ‘mother’. Does this mean that the written text of the Qur’an is the son?
Whould this make God or Allah the ‘father’ of the Qur’an? Why is the Qur’an
allowed to use metaphorical language like ‘son’ and ‘mother’ but the Bible is
not? Why is there one rule for the Qur’an, and another rule for the Bible? This
is clearly the epitome of inconsistency.
We have seen in this article that the idea of son of God is
deeply rooted within the OT and other Second Temple Jewish
literature. This is the background to the NT language of sonship.
Neither the Old or New Testaments take the language of sonship in relation to
God as implying a literal meaning within a sexual context. The truth of the
matter is, the author(s) of the Qur’an was / were abysmally ignorant of the
Bible and its language. The sooner our Muslim friends come to terms with this
reality, the sooner we can move forward in dialogue with honest and open
discussion.
4 comments:
I love reading these articles because they are like mini essays. Not to change to subject from this specific article about the meaning of "son of God", but I would really love to read an article about the Muslim chant "Allah Akbar." How did this become a religious chant? Wasn't this a war chant for Muslims? Did Mohammad himself invent this chant? I don't really understand why Muslims scream god is great.
Keep up the good work.
I highly recommend everybody to watch the YOUTUBE videos of ISLAMIC DILEMMA. After that HONEST Muslims will become non Mmuslims and NO NON MUSLIM will convert to Islam.
Allahu akbar" is a superlative phrase in Arabic meaning "Allah is the greatest". This was a cry of supremacy that Allah is the greatest god over all other Arabian deities like Allat, al-Uzzah and Manat. This phrase was also used as a war cry as seen in the Hadith, “Narrated Abu Musa Al−Ash`ari: When Allah's Apostle fought the battle of Khaibar, or when Allah's Apostle went towards it, (whenever) the people, (passed over a high place overlooking a valley, they raised their voices saying, "Allahu−Akbar! Allahu−Akbar! None has the right to be worshipped except Allah" (Sahih Bukhari 5.516).
I think that literally "Allahu akbar" means "God is greater." It is the comparative form, not the superlative, which would be Allahu al-akbar, or Allahu 'lakbar with elision. The idea of the cry is that Allah is greater than any would-be competitor for His glory/dominion/throne. Ultimately, this has the same final meaning as "God is the greatest," except that in the comparative sense it conveys the idea of a challenge -- "the One we worship is greater than the one/ones you worship -- so give up your false gods and come submit to Allah, who is greater!"
Post a Comment