son of God?

[lilbassist93]

alot of people say that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God...but others in the bible have been called son of God...so im sorta confused and i need your input on this.

[Jac3510]

There is confusion on the term for two reasons:

1. In Jewish circles in the first century, the term "Son of God" did NOT imply, in and of itself, deity (oddly enough, the term Son of Man did). Rather, it was taken, with reference to Psalm 2, to apply to the king of Israel, where the king was "adopted" by God. It was, then, a reference to royalty, not deity.

The term Christ had a similar meaning. It is a Greek translation of the Hebrew term messiah, which means "the annointed one." As the King of Israel was annointed, and as the Messiah was going to be King of Israel, the two terms became conflated under Roman dominion. When the people said they were looking for the Christ, the Messiah, or The Son of God, they were talking about the liberator who would become King of Israel.

2. That is the way the term is used in the Synopic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). In John, however, the usage of both terms (Christ and Son of God) are different. While in Jewish circles, the terms were synonymous, in Christian circles, they were not. The term "Christ" became, as it is still used today, a word that referred to Jesus as the personal savior rather than the political savior. Thus, the Christ became the one who would guarantee everlasting life (note, that concept is not missing in the Jewish thought process, just as the Jewish notion of Kingship is not lost in the Christian usage; it is jut that those usages are not primary). The term Son of God became an explicit reference to deity. Thus, when John's Gospel uses the term "Son of God," he intends the reader to see how to term develops. To demonstrate this, John calls Jesus both the Son of God and the unqualified Son.

Now, it is clear that the Son is a divine figure in John's Gospel. Thus, when you hear someone say that Jesus made Himself equal with God by saying He was the Son of God, they are referring to John's Gospel primarily, for it is in that Gospel that Jesus' familial relationship with God is so strongly emphasized. So, while the Synoptics emphasize Jesus' kingship, we are not suprised that they rarely refer to Him as the Son of God (knowing, as they did, the connotation that had taken on). John uses it a great deal, precisely because the connotation it had taken on.

As a final thought, Jesus Himself is the One who brought out the change in usage. It is evident from the Gospels that He used both the terms Son of Man and Son of God. But His emphasis on the latter, however, was in His personal relatioship with God. In other words, Jesus Himself took the common term Son of God (which referred, rightly, to the King of Israel, because that is what Jesus was) and gave it a deeper, more literal meaning. His followers picked up on that usage and expounded on it.

I hope that helps!

God bless

[lilbassist93]

wow that was alot, and really well explained, thanks!