The Son of God as Israel: A Note on Matthean Christology

1988

This dissertation aims to define the title "Son of God" as applied to Jesus Christ in the Synoptic Gospels. In the Old Testament the term "son of God" was variously applied to angels, Israel, Israelites, Davidic kings, and possibly to the Messiah. In intertestamental Judaism the term was used mainly with reference to Israel and its righteous people, and is

This essay seeks to understand the use of the title ‘Son of God’ in relation to Jesus of Nazareth, as described in St Mark’s gospel. The essay therefore naturally consists of three major parts: after considering some preliminary questions I shall firstly investigate what the author of Mark meant by the use of such a title; secondly, what Jesus understood by that title; and thirdly, what the readers of the Marcan tradition understood by it. In considering the first part, we shall examine the instances of where the Evangelist uses ‘Son of God’ to describe Jesus, as well as those passages in where this is inferred, and assess what author is trying to mean. The second part shall examine Jesus’ use and understanding of titles generally, and this one in particular. Finally we shall consider how such a term would be understood by those to whom it was first addressed. This follows a classic hermeneutical pattern where the author, the reader and the text is analysed. The essay shall conclude with a brief summary and after all the foregoing analysis, attempt to answer the question ‘what does the title Son of God mean? And how was it understood?’

Journal of Biblical Literature, 1981

145-240 145 145 149 2) The San of David in Matthew a. Jesus is a San of David (i) The Question of Fact Conclusion (ii) The Significance of this Fact for Matthew 2 Conclusion 157 b. Jesus is the San of David (i) The First Century Saint David (a) Sirach 47:1-22 (b) The Psalmody of Later Judaism (c) Wisdom 7-9 (d) BibZiaaZ Antiquities 59-63 (e) Jewish Antiquities 6, §156-7, §394

Adventist Apologetics, 2019

The Kindergarten Sabbath School teacher may have done thorough preparation to teach the lesson that Sabbath; but, she was probably at a loss for words, when, right after she had talked about Jesus, one of the children interjected: "Jesus is not God; He is only 'the son of God'!" This hyper-literalistic perspective should not surprise any Seventh-day Adventist who is cognizant of the view of some early pioneers of this denomination. Even that foremost Bible scholar, John Nevins Andrews, who served as editor of the official church paper, the Review and Herald, wrote against the trinity notion. In an article regarding the identity of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7, he argued that the words "having neither beginning of days" (vs. 3) cannot be taken as literal, since every being in the universe except for God the Father has a beginning. Ironically, it is in this very context that Andrews himself, taking the phrase "Son of God" as extremely literal, wrote: "And as to the Son of God, he would be excluded also, for he had God for his Father, and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have [a] beginning of days." It is the overly-literal perspective of that kindergartener and even some early Adventist pioneers, as well as the more recent challenges raised by other non- and anti-trinitarians, that have inadvertently provided an impetus for this research.

The expression " Son of Man " is Jesus " preferred title in the Gospels. The meaning of the phrase and Jesus " probable motive for using the title constitute the basis for this study. The work explores some instances in the Gospels where the phrase is used in relation to Jesus and identifies a common pattern; attempt an explanation of the meaning of the term as expressive of the mediatory role Jesus performs as the one who unites God and the world and therefore the heart and centre of human salvation. The concluding statements highlight the importance of the title in the light of Jesus " mission to save and the obligations it imposes consequently on Christians as imitators of Christ.

Jurnal PASCA, 2020

Many scholars and lay people try to figure out the reasons why the Lord Jesus Christ uses the title of the son of man to designate Himself. He uses the title of the son of man throughout the Gospels, but there are some incidents only appear outside of the Gospels. This appearance is impressing to find out the reasons why the term occurrences in the Gospel. However, the term also appears in few passages outside the Gospels. Therefore, using the method of critical analysis through the library research as the qualitative methodology in order to seek the development of the argument from beginning up today and to see how the New Testament scholars clear up the message of Jesus in using that title. Few scholars comment that term has significant for the Christological development of the New Testament due to the messianic proclamation as the saviour of the world. Furthermore, the idea of representative between man and God apparently introduces the idea of the high priest in the New Testament writing for Jesus' Christology. This idea will bring the consumption for Biblical Theology when scholars seek this terminology in the New Testament writing.

Interfaith Research, Education, and Practice - Beyond the Divide, 2023

The term "son of God" has been a source of confusion and controversy in the history of Christian-Muslim encounter. Christian tradition regards the gospel according to John as the account which most clearly portrays the deity of Christ and points to his being the "son of God" as proof of his divinity and equality with God. This article presents a Muslim scholar's challenge to this understanding, arguing that "son of God" in John's Gospel refers to an anointed king (messiah) who as heir of the Davidic kingdom has authority to act as God's surrogate on the earth. The equality of the son does not refer to a divine nature but his being God's unique agent possessing full authority from God. It is not a claim to be on par with God or an incarnation of God. A Christian scholar responds, agreeing with this exegetical emphasis on divinity as referring to Jesus' unique authority as the Christ. However, other nuances of meaning, such as his revelatory relationship to God, must also be considered, especially in tracing developments from John's usage to those in later Christian theology. Questions over the inner nature of God (reflected in Christian Trinitarian theology and Muslim kalam debates) are a related, but different topic-yet one in which there is a surprising measure of common ground. Several implications for Muslim-Christian dialogue are offered.