Was Jesus “the Son of God” Prior to His Incarnation?

     The apostle Paul affirms: “but when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, having been born out of woman, having been born under [the] law” (Gal. 4:4).¹ Does the fact that “God sent forth his Son” suggest Jesus was the Son of God prior to his incarnation? R. Y. K. Fung argues: “It is to be observed that Christ was already Son when God sent him, that it was not the sending which made him the Son of God; in other words, his Sonship is to be understood not merely in a functional sense but in an ontological sense” (Galatians [NICNT] 181-82). But is this a valid inference, and is it consistent with overall biblical teaching? 

     There are only three references in the OT to Jesus as “Son” (Psa. 2:7, 12; Dan. 7:13), all of which are predictive messianic prophecies. The formal title “the Son of God” does not occur in the Hebrew scriptures.² There are eleven verses in the OT alluding to God as “Father” (Deut. 32:6; 2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:14; Psa. 89:26; Isa. 9:6; 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:4; 31:9; Mal. 1:6; 2:10), though not as the Father of a Son but of the nation of Israel.³ And one of these passages (Isa. 9:6) is actually a messianic prophecy applicable to Jesus Christ!

     Paul connects the sending forth of God’s Son with the occasion of “having been born of woman.” In Luke’s account of the birth narrative, the angel Gabriel proclaims to Mary: “And behold you will conceive in [your] womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. This [one] will be great and will be called Son of [the] Most High …. [the] Holy Spirit will overshadow you; therefore also the holy [one] being born will be called Son of God” (Luke 1:31-35, emp. added). The future tense of this proclamation indicates that Jesus was recognized as “Son” in conjunction with his human conception and birth, not before.

     The fact that “Jesus Christ” is said to have been “sent” (John 17:3) does not mean that he was known as “Jesus Christ” prior to the incarnation (cf. Matt. 1:21). The expression “God sent forth his Son,” therefore, does not necessarily imply previous recognition as God’s Son. To speak of “the Son of God” being “manifested” (1 John 3:8) is comparable to saying that “Jesus Christ” was “manifested” (2 Tim. 1:9-10; 1 Pet. 1:13, 19, 20), neither of which imply prior existence as either the Son of God or as Jesus Christ.

     Paul appears to be making a proleptic statement, i.e., using current language to describe something in the past. For example, Moses speaks of “Bethel” as he records Abraham’s entrance into the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:8), even though the place was not actually named Bethel until several decades after the arrival of Abraham (Gen. 28:10-19). At the time the historical narrative was transcribed, the place was known as Bethel and thus so designated in the text. In John 11:1-2, in the account of Lazarus’ illness and subsequent death, Mary is described as the one who anointed the Lord’s feet (an act for which she was known at the time of writing), although chronologically this did not occur until a few months later (John 12:5).

     Paul’s employment of the term “Son” to designate the one sent forth from God “resonates with the surrounding verses, in which he states that believers are also ‘sons of God’” (L. A. Jervis, Galatians [NIBC] 109). In relation to God, the significance of the designation “the Son of God” is twofold, suggesting: (a) subordination of role or position (cf. John 14:28); and (b) equality of nature and essence (John 5:17-18; 10:24-33; 19:5-7). While the latter was in place prior to the incarnation, the former was not (cf. Phil. 2:5-7).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² When Nebuchadnezzar said “the appearance” [wə-rê-wêh] of the fourth person in the furnace “is like” [dā-mêh] “a son” [lə-ḇar-] “of gods” [’ĕ-lā-hîn] (Dan. 3:25, cf. ESV, N/ASV, etc.), it is highly unlikely that the pagan king had any concept of “the Son of God” (N/KJV) in the NT sense. The pre-incarnate Christ would not be manifested as the Son of God for another six centuries. Nebuchadnezzar was simply trying to explain what he saw as “a divine being” (ISV), perhaps an “angel” (3:28). Elsewhere in the book of Daniel the same terminology is used with reference to pagan “gods” (2:11, 47; 5:11b; cf. most translations of 4:8, 9, 18; 5:11a, 14).

     ³ An apparent exception is 2 Sam. 7:14 and the parallel account in 1 Chron. 17:14, where David is reassured that after his death God will take his place as Solomon’s father, in the sense of exercising special care for him. In addition to the fact that the Davidic king represents the Davidic kingdom (i.e. the people of God), this passage seems to have messianic implications, as it is later quoted in Heb. 1:5 to discount angels from the role of divine sonship, establishing Christ’s superiority over them. In the OT “fatherhood” is just one of several metaphors describing God’s relationship with his people; cp. “husband” (Isa. 54:5; Hos. 2:16), “shepherd” (Psa. 23:1; Isa. 40:10-11), “vinedresser” (Isa. 5:1-7), “shelter” (Psa. 61:3-8), etc.

Related Posts: Jesus Christ: the Son of God 

Image credit: https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-print-models/art/sculptures/jesus-prayer

The Everlasting Subservience of Jesus Christ

     There are basically four views on the Son’s subjection to the Father: (1) Eternal Sonship – Jesus has always been and always will be subservient to the Father; (2) Everlasting Sonship – Jesus became subservient to the Father at the incarnation and forever remains in this role; (3) Epochal Sonship – Jesus temporarily became subservient to the Father at the incarnation but resumed full equality when he returned to heaven; (4) Extended Epochal Sonship – Jesus became subservient to the Father at the incarnation and remains in this position until the scheme of redemption is complete at the final judgment, then he returns to full equality.

Eternal Sonship?

     The Nicene Creed (AD 325) affirms that Jesus Christ is “the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father …” This concept rests on scriptural affirmations of the Father having sent the Son (John 20:21; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:10, 14; cf. John 3:16), the Son having been manifested (1 John 3:8), and the Son’s involvement in creation (Col. 1:13-16;¹ Heb. 1:2). These passages, it is argued, seem to imply that the Father-Son relationship existed long before the incarnation.

     An initial response is one of consistency. The Bible also speaks of “Jesus Christ” having been sent (John 17:3; cf. 6:29; 7:28, 33; 8:42; Luke 9:47-48) and manifested (2 Tim. 1:9-10; cf. Rom. 16:25-26; Heb. 9:24-28; 1 Pet. 1:19-20; 1 John 1:2-3). Yet, predictive prophecy notwithstanding, he was not known as either “Jesus” or “the Christ” prior to his incarnation (cf. Matt. 1:16, 17, 18, 21, 25). These are simply instances of prolepsis – representing something as existing before it actually does. For example, if a history teacher were to say, “President Lincoln was born in Kentucky,” no one would infer from this statement that baby Abraham was already president of the United States at the time of his birth. Because he is currently remembered as President Lincoln, it is natural to speak of him this way, even when describing events before his presidency. If the designation “Jesus Christ” were substituted for “the Son” in the scriptures cited above, the meaning would be the same.

Incarnational Sonship

     The Father-Son relationship has not always been. It began when Jesus became human, and the Son has been subject to the Father since the incarnation. In Luke’s account of the birth narrative, the angel Gabriel proclaims to Mary: “he will be great and will be called Son of [the] Highest …. the holy [one] being born will be called Son of God” (Luke 1:31-35).² The future tense indicates that the Lord was recognized as “Son” in conjunction with his human conception and birth, not before. There are only three references to Jesus as “Son” in the Old Testament (Psa. 2:7, 12; Dan. 7:13), and all of these are prophetic. Though existing in the form of God, Jesus humbled himself by taking on human flesh (John 1:1, 14; Phil. 2:5-8). Jesus as “the Son of God” implies both equality (of nature) and subordination (of role) <see Son of God>.

Everlasting Sonship

     In the context of discussing Christ’s return and the general resurrection, the apostle Paul writes: “But when all things shall have been put into subjection to him [God], then also the Son himself will be put into subjection to the [one] having put all things in subjection to him, that God might be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). This seems to indicate that Jesus’ subordinate status, which began at his conception and birth, continues through eternity.

     Using Philippians 2:5-11 as an outline, let’s recap what has been covered in previous studies in this series and carry through to a reasonable conclusion. Note the following about Jesus: (a) “existing in the form of God” (vv. 5-6); (b) “emptied [kenóō] himself” (vv. 7-8); (c) “God has highly exalted him” (vv. 9-11).

     First, Christ “existing in the form of God” (Phil. 2:5-6) affirms his divine essence (John 1:1-3; 20:26-29; Col. 1:15-19; 2:9; Rev. 1:7-8, 17-18; 22:12-13), and thus his equality with God (John 5:17-18; 8:23-24, 58; 10:30-33; 17:5). His inherent nature cannot change (cf. Heb. 13:8).

     Second, he “emptied [kenóō] himself” (Phil. 2:7-8), which is an allusion to becoming a flesh-and-blood human being (John 1:14; Heb. 5:7; 10:5, 20), subject to every emotion, discomfort, temptation, trial, etc., as we are. In Heb. 2:9-18, which highlights his oneness with mankind, we are told in v. 17 that he became like us katá pánta, “in all things” or “in every respect.” In other words, he had no undue advantage over the rest of humanity. Jesus did not cease being God; he could not discontinue being who he inherently was (John 10:30-33; 20:28). But in becoming a man he did “empty” [kenóō] himself of something. As a human, Jesus gave up the rights, privileges, advantages, prerogatives, and powers of deity <see Son of Man>. His miraculous ability was not inherently his own; it was given to him by the Father through the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38; cf. Matt. 9:8; 12:28; Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14-19; John 3:2; 5:36; Acts 2:22). Whatever Jesus needed to confirm his identity and message was supplied to him by the Father, but in his everyday life as a human being Jesus had no unfair advantage over the rest of us. His sinless perfection as a human was not attributable to his divine nature but to his complete submission to the will of the Father (John 5:30; 6:38; 8:29).

     Finally, Paul says, “God has highly exalted him” (Phil. 2:9-11); i.e., Christ has been exalted to a position higher than his earthly role but not to his former state of full equality with God. Note that God has exalted him and given him the lofty name; everyone will confess that “Jesus Christ [is] Lord” (his human name); and all of this is “to the glory of God the Father.” The Father-Son relationship continues and Christ’s submission to the Father remains.

     Note Matthew 28:18 affirms that all authority has been given to Christ; it is derived, not inherent. His oneness with humanity and the consequent subservience to God the Father has not changed. After his death and resurrection, Jesus did not stop being a “flesh and bones” human (Luke 24:39-40). After his ascension into heaven and in view of the coming judgment, Jesus is still referred to as a “man” (Acts 7:55-56; 13:38; 17:30-31; 1 Tim. 2:5). Whatever Jesus is now, we will be like him some day, after the judgment (1 John 3:2); his brotherhood with humanity has not ceased nor will it ever cease.

     At the end of time Jesus will continue to be subject to God the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28). The sacrifice Jesus made for us began at his incarnation but did not end at the cross – it is everlasting. Jesus forever gave up complete equality with God (including the rights, privileges, and powers of deity), never to take it up again. [Note: his divine essence remains intact, but so does his subservience]. The penalty for sin is forever (Matt. 25:46), so the price that Jesus paid for our sins has no end.³

But What About Christ’s Exaltation and Glorification?

     Those who take the Epochal View of Christ’s Sonship (his having returned to full equality) argue their case based primarily on John 17:5 and Phil. 2:9. In Gethsemane Jesus prayed, “and now glorify me, Father, with yourself, with the glory [dóxa] that I had with you before the world existed” (John 17:5). Then Paul affirms, “God has highly exalted him” (Phil. 2:9).

     As to Jesus’ request to regain his former “glory,” the fundamental question is: what does “glory” [dóxa] actually mean, and does it cancel out subservience to the Father? Gordon Fee has likened the attempt to define dóxa to trying to pick up mercury between one’s fingers. In the same context, Jesus says that the “glory” [dóxa] the Father gave him was also given to the apostles (John 17:22). In fact, all faithful disciples will share in this glory (Rom. 2:7, 10; 8:18, 21; 9:23; 1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:17; Eph. 1:18; 3:13; Phil. 3:21; Col. 1:27; 3:4; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 2:10; Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 1:7; 5:1, 4, 10).⁴ There are numerous other passages wherein dóxa does not and cannot mean equality with God (Matt. 6:29; Luke 2:32; 4:6; 12:27; 14:10; 7:18; Rom. 9:4; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15; 15:40-43; 2 Cor. 3:7-11; Phil. 3:19; 1 Thess. 2:20; Heb. 2:7; 1 Pet. 1:24). Whatever Jesus meant in his John 17 prayer, and however the request was answered, do not change the ongoing Father-Son relationship and the subordinate status it entails.

     As to being “highly exalted” (Phil. 2:9), I would suggest this refers to his exalted position higher than his earthly role but doesn’t necessarily mean a return to his pre-incarnate status. The Father-Son relationship remains. The subordination of Christ is not ontological (as per essence or being) but functional (as per the scheme of redemption).

That God May Be All in All

     What, then, is meant by the concluding statement of 1 Cor. 15:28, “that God may be all in all”? Similar terminology is used by Paul in other passages, although he is addressing different audiences in different circumstances grappling with different issues, pertaining to God (Rom. 11:33-36), Christ (Col. 3:11), and the church (Eph. 1:22-23) respectively. If the reference to “God” in 1 Cor. 15:28 is synonymous with “the Father” (cf. v. 24), this would indicate that Christ’s subservience continues through eternity for the Father’s glory. If, however, this is a broader reference to the entire Godhead, perhaps the meaning is that Christ’s subservience ends, and then complete equality within the triune Godhead resumes (the Extended Epochal View of Sonship). While it is unlikely that anyone on earth today has the final answer, here are my thoughts.

The Corinthian Context

     Within the immediate context, both before and after the statement in question, there is a clear distinction between “God” and “Christ” (1 Cor. 15:15, 57); the same occurs throughout the epistle (1:1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 24, 30; etc.). Within this particular discourse, “the kingdom of God the Father” (15:24) is synonymous with “the kingdom of God” (15:50). Earlier in the epistle Paul has reminded his readers of the functional hierarchy within the Godhead: “you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (3:23); “… and God is head of Christ” (11:3). In stark contrast to the polytheistic environment of first-century Corinth, Paul has reminded his readers that there is “no other God but one …. one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom [are] all things …” (8:4-6). Paul has also stated, “but all things are from God” (11:12).

     There doesn’t appear to have been a problem among the Corinthians concerning their allegiance to Christ (cf. 1:6, 9, 12; 3:10-11, 23; 4:15). Yet for some reason Paul places great emphasis on “God” throughout 1 Corinthians (84x): the will of God (1:1), the church[es] of God (1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9), the grace of God (1:4; 3:10; 15:10), the power of God (1:18, 24; 2:5), the wisdom of God (1:21, 24, 30; 2:7), the Spirit of God (2:10-14; 3:16; 6:11, 19; 7:40; 12:3), the deep things of God (2:10, 11; 4:1), the gifts of God (2:12; 3:6, 7; 7:7, 17), the field of God (3:9), the building of God (3:9), the temple of God (3:16, 17; 6:19, 20), the kingdom of God (4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50), the commandments of God (7:19), the faithfulness of God (10:13), the glory of God (10:31; 11:7), the word of God (14:36), the knowledge of God (15:34).

     It is possible that the Corinthians were losing sight of God's preeminence, with a lopsided devotion to Christ. The top of the hierarchical arrangement is God, with access granted to him through Christ. Perhaps the Corinthian slogan “I am of Christ” (1:12) was a henotheistic way of exalting Christ as the only God,⁵ and Paul has to remind them, “… Christ is God’s” (3:23); “… God is head of Christ” (11:3). This would explain the heavy emphasis on God throughout the epistle, the unique discussion in 15:23-28, and the ensuing reprimand, “for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak to your shame” (15:34). This in no way diminishes the preeminence of Christ (which is the issue that needed to be addressed in Colossians), but simply redirects some of the misguided notions of the Corinthians at the time.

Conclusion

     While God is the First and the Last (Isa. 44:6; Rev. 1:8), this does not exclude Jesus the Son (Rev. 1:17-18; 2:8; 22:12-13, 16). From a metaphysical perspective, God is “all in all” in the sense of one God united in three divine Persons. From a soteriological perspective, God is “all in all” in the sense that each member of the triune Godhead has a role to play in the redemptive plan, including the subordination and sacrifice of the Son. From an eschatological perspective, God is “all in all” in the sense that God ultimately wins in the end. This latter emphasis seems to be the best fit in the immediate argument of 1 Cor. 15.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ In Colossians 1:13 Paul speaks of “the kingdom of his beloved Son” following multiple allusions to the Lord Jesus Christ (vv. 1, 3, 4, 10). As the apostle goes on to speak of creation, his emphasis is not on “the Son” per se but on the one now regarded as the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation, with emphasis added.

     ³ For an opposing view, see Earl D. Edwards, “End-Times Teaching in First Corinthians 15” (manuscript for 2017 FHU Lectureship, pp. 5-11). Bro. Edwards concedes the permanence of the incarnation but argues that Jesus is now fully restored in glory and equality with the Father.

     ⁴ Note also the angels (Luke 9:26) and departed saints (Luke 9:31).
     ⁵ See J. Moffatt, First Corinthians 249-52. Henotheism, common in the first-century Greco-Roman world, is a form of polytheism that acknowledges multiple deities, while regarding one of them (e.g. Zeus/Jupiter) as the supreme god.

Related Posts: Son of God, Son of Man

Image credit: http://images.christianpost.com/ipost/full/7226/jesus-prayer.jpg?w=350&h=268

Jesus Christ: the Son of God

     If Jesus is God (see previous post), how did he come to be known as “the Son of God”? In addition to his own testimony (e.g. Matt. 27:43; Mark 14:61-62; John 5:17-25; 11:4), Jesus is identified as the Son of God by the heavenly Father (Luke 3:22; 9:35; 2 Pet. 1:17), the Holy Spirit (Heb. 4:14; 5:8; 2 Pet. 1:16-21), the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:32, 35), John the baptizer (John 1:34), his immediate disciples (Matt. 14:33), Martha (John 11:27), Simon Peter (Matt. 16:16), the apostle John (John 20:31), Paul (Acts 9:19-20; Rom. 1:3-4), John Mark (Mark 1:1), Nathaniel (John 1:49), a Roman centurion (Matt. 27:54; Mark 15:39), antagonistic Jews (Matt. 26:63; 27:40, 43; Luke 22:70; John 19:7), and even satanic forces (Matt. 4:3, 6; Mark 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:3, 9, 41; 8:28). What is the significance of this role and title? As the Son of God, is he subordinate to God, equal with God, neither, or both?

The Beginning of the Father-Son Relationship

     There are only three Old Testament allusions to Jesus as “Son” (Psa. 2:7, 12; Dan. 7:13), all of which are predictive messianic prophecies. Note also that the words of Yahweh recorded in Psalm 2:7, “You are my Son, I have begotten you this day,”¹ are in reference to Christ’s resurrection (Acts 13:33), not to his birth or alleged beginning. There are eleven verses in the Hebrew scriptures referring to God as “Father” (Deut. 32:6; 2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:14; Psa. 89:26; Isa. 9:6; 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:4; 31:9; Mal. 1:6; 2:10), though not as the Father of a Son but of the nation of Israel.² And one of these passages (Isa. 9:6) is actually a messianic prophecy applicable to Jesus Christ. The formal title “the Son of God” does not occur in the Old Testament.³

     While two of the four evangelists record the occasion of Christ’s birth, it is only Luke who tells of the angel Gabriel’s conversation with Mary. Having announced to the virgin that she will conceive and bear a son, the angel declares: “he will be great and will be called Son of [the] Highest …. the holy [one] being born will be called Son of God” (Luke 1:32, 35). Notice the future tense of Gabriel’s prophecy. There is no clear indication in scripture that Jesus was ever regarded as the “Son of God” prior to his incarnation (discussed further with objections considered in a future post), and the concept of God as “Father” also takes on new meaning in conjunction with Christ’s earthly role.

Subordination of Role

     In the ancient East the word “son” was often used to describe one’s character, disposition, nature, or conduct.⁴ But in the relational sense, particularly in view of the New Testament allusions to the Father and the Son, the question is whether this depiction implies subordination or equality. The idea of subordinate status is indicated by the Lord’s statement in John 14:28, “I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Obviously in his role as Son, Jesus was in a subservient position with respect to the Father.⁵ It is important to note, however, that in this statement Jesus does not use the word “better” [kreittōn], which would imply superiority of nature or worth (cf. Heb. 1:4). The term “greater” [meizōn], used here, qualifies one’s role or position without implying anything about essence or innate value (cf. John 10:29; 13:16; 1 Cor. 14:5). I am the son of Glenn E. Moore, and while my relational status is beneath his, we equally share the same intrinsic nature. In other words, I am the son of a human being and am therefore a human being myself.⁶

Equality of Essence

     The majority of biblical references to Christ as the Son of God seem to emphasize his divine essence. The Fourth Gospel in particular was composed “in order that you may have faith that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that having faith you may have life in his name” (20:31). Opening with a clear affirmation of his deity (1:1-18) and after two explicit references to him as “the Son of God” (1:34, 49), John records Jesus addressing the heavenly throne as “my Father” (2:16) and alluding to himself as God’s Son (3:16-18). Then, while being persecuted by the Jews for having healed a sick man on the Sabbath (5:16), the Lord responds: “my Father is working until now, and I am working” (v. 17). Notice that Jesus does not refer to God as “our” Father, an expression which would have been acceptable to his Jewish opponents.⁷ Instead he speaks in the exclusive sense of “my” Father, implying that he is the Son of God and provoking the following reaction: “On account of this, therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said God was his own Father, making himself equal to God” (v. 18). 

     The Jews recognized his remarks, not as an implication of subservience but as a lofty claim of divine equality. Now one might argue that they simply misunderstood him and that he did not intend for his words to be taken as such.⁸ Yet Jesus witnessed first-hand that his declaration to be God’s Son was interpreted as an assertion of deity, and he continued to make this claim (vv. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 43, etc.). If the inference of these Jews had been wrong, surely the Lord would have sought to correct the misunderstanding and discontinued using such elevated and provocative terminology. However, not only does he persist in professing his role as “the Son” (6:40; 8:36), his recorded references to God as “my Father” actually increase (5:43; 6:32, 65; 8:19, 28, 38, 49, 54; 10:17, 18, 25, 29; etc.).⁹

     In John 10:22 ff., while surrounded by antagonistic, disbelieving Jews, the Lord continues to refer to God as “my Father” (vv. 25, 29), affirming: “I and the Father are one” (v. 30). Not surprisingly they accuse him of blasphemy because, they say, “you being a man make yourself God” (v. 33b). Their conclusion is not necessarily based on his assumption of unity with the Father¹⁰ but his claim to be God’s Son. Note that his allusions to “my Father” equate to the more explicit statement, “I am Son of God” (v. 36), clearly implying equality of nature. Jesus, as God’s Son, is by nature God, just as he, as the son of man (1:51; 3:14; etc.), is by nature man.     

     Knowing the full implications of his words, Jesus does not back away from his exalted claim to be God’s Son, both explicitly (10:36; 11:4) and implicitly (10:37, 38; 14:2, 7, 12; et al.), in the presence of both unbelievers (10:37, 38) and believers (14:2; 18:11; 20:17), and even in prayer (17:1).¹¹ Consequently, at his trial before Pontius Pilate, the Jews demand his execution, exclaiming: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself Son of God” (19:7; cf. Matt. 26:63-66; 27:43). Now if professing to be God’s Son were merely a concession of inferiority and submission, there is nothing in the Jewish law that would require the death penalty for such. However, blasphemy was considered a capital crime worthy of death (Lev. 24:16), and maintaining to be God’s Son, particularly in the context of orthodox Judaism, was evidently intended and understood as an assertion of divine equality.

Conclusion

     Surely John records these incidents for a reason, no doubt to bolster the expressed purpose of his Gospel (20:30-31). While subjection to the Father may be a subtle implication of Christ’s role as Son (cf. 14:26), the entirety of John’s narrative reveals so much more. The distinction is between his assumed function as man (subordination) and his inherent divine nature (equality). Incarnation of deity is implicitly communicated by the New Testament expression, “the Son of God.”

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² An apparent exception is 2 Samuel 7:14 and the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 17:14, where David is reassured that after his death God will take his place as Solomon’s father, in the sense of exercising special care for him. In addition to the fact that the Davidic king represents the Davidic kingdom (i.e., the people of God), this passage seems to have messianic implications, as it is later quoted in Hebrews 1:5 to discount angels from the role of divine sonship, thus establishing Christ’s superiority over them. In the Old Testament “fatherhood” is just one of several metaphors describing God’s relationship with his people; cp. “husband” (Isa. 54:5; Hos. 2:16), “shepherd” (Psa. 23:1; Isa. 40:10-11), “vinedresser” (Isa. 5:1-7), “shelter” (Psa. 61:3-8), etc.

     ³ When Nebuchadnezzar said “the appearance” [wə-rê-wêh] of the fourth person in the furnace “is like” [dā-mêh] “a son” [lə-ḇar-] “of gods” [’ĕ-lā-hîn] (Dan. 3:25, cf. ESV, N/ASV, etc.), it is highly unlikely that the pagan king had any concept of “the Son of God” (N/KJV) in the NT sense. The pre-incarnate Christ would not be manifested as the Son of God for another six centuries. Nebuchadnezzar was simply trying to explain what he saw as “a divine being” (ISV), perhaps an “angel” (3:28). Elsewhere in the book of Daniel the same terminology is used with reference to pagan “gods” (2:11, 47; 5:11b; cf. most translations of 4:8, 9, 18; 5:11a, 14).

     ⁴ For example, “sons of Belial” (Judges 19:22; 1 Sam. 2:12); “sons of might” (Psa. 29:1; 89:6); “son of wickedness” (Psa. 89:22); “sons of the sorceress” (Isa. 57:3); “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17); “sons of this world” (Luke 16:8); “sons of light” (John 12:36; Eph. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:5); “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36); “son of destruction” (John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3).

     ⁵ See also John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 7:16; 8:28-29; 10:18; 12:50; 14:10, 24, 31; 15:10, 15; 17:4, 7.

     ⁶ This can also be seen in the relationship between Jesus and his earthly father Joseph. Note, however, that Joseph was not his biological father (Matt. 1:18-25) but in a functional sense was recognized as his legal father (John 6:42). In the role of Joseph’s son, Jesus was subject to his earthly father (Luke 2:51). This in no way suggests that he was less than human or somehow inferior to Joseph as far as his human nature was concerned. As the son of man, Jesus was (a) not the same person as his earthly father; (b) in a subordinate role in relation to his earthly father; (c) in no way inferior to his earthly father in essence or nature. In like manner, as the Son of God, Jesus is (a) not the same person as the heavenly Father (John 17:1); (b) in a subordinate role in relation to the heavenly Father (John 14:28); (c) in no way inferior to the heavenly Father in essence or nature (John 5:18; 20:28).

     ⁷ See Isa. 63:16; 64:8; John 8:41; cf. Matt. 6:9. In Psalm 89:26 David is reported as saying to God, “you are my Father …” However, this psalm was written after David’s death and is clearly messianic, with reference to David’s “seed” and his “throne” (vv. 4, 29, 36), ultimately fulfilled in Christ, “the Son of David” (Isa. 9:6-7; Matt. 1:1; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-17). In Jeremiah 3:4 the people of Israel are collectively personified as a rebellious man crying to God, “my Father.” But this would not have been the natural expression of an individual Jew. See also Deut. 32:18; Jer. 2:27. While Jesus makes a number of allusions to “your Father” (Matt. 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1; John 20:17; etc.), the second person pronoun is plural and therefore does not correspond to the first person singular. The plural expression “sons of God” occurs frequently in scripture with reference to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Daniel 3:25) and to God’s chosen people (Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Hos. 1:10; cf. Gen. 6:1-4), sometimes jointly personified as a single “son” (Ex. 4:22-23; Hos. 11:1). In the New Testament those who undergo spiritual “birth” or “adoption” are regarded as sons (children) of God (John 1:12-13; 3:3-5; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 3:26; 1 John 3:1-2; etc.). Nevertheless, Jesus Christ is the only one who legitimately wears the exclusive designation, “the Son of God.”

     ⁸ Technically, the final observation in v. 18 is John's comment. Nevertheless, these Jews had also accused Jesus of violating the Sabbath law. But the difference here is between the Lord’s actions and his words. Jesus knew that his actions were right, so despite the false accusations he continued to do the same things (cf. Matt. 12:1-13; Luke 13:10-14; 14:1-6; John 9:14). However, his words were clearly seen as blasphemous, so if Jesus did not mean to suggest equality with God, the confusion could have easily been rectified by a simple explanation or by a change of terminology. In other words, if his language conveyed the wrong message, it would have been necessary to modify it to more clearly communicate what he intended. His actions (healing on the Sabbath) did not truly violate the law, but the implication of his words, if untrue, would have been a gross violation of the law.

     ⁹ There are at least two textual variants applicable to this discussion. In John 6:69 the Byzantine Majority Text includes in Peter’s confession the words, “you are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (cf. N/KJV), whereas the NA/UBS text reads, “the holy one of God” (cf. ESV, NASB). In John 9:35 the reading in the BMT is “the Son of God,” while the words preserved in the NA/UBS text are, “the son of man.” See B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary (2nd ed.): 184, 194.

     ¹⁰ In John 10:30 Jesus is not suggesting that he and the Father are the same person. He uses the neuter term heis (one) to signify a unity of mind and purpose (cf. 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22, 23).

Related Posts: Deity of Christ, Son of Man

Image credit: http://wallpapersafari.com/w/VrLESQ/