Grace Journal 6.2
(Spring 1965) 16-23
[Copyright © 1965
Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
THE TERM "SON OF GOD" IN THE LIGHT OF
OLD TESTAMENT IDIOM
S. HERBERT BESS
Professor of Hebrew and
Old Testament
Grace Theological
Seminary
The Second Person of the Trinity is
frequently referred to in the New Testament
as the Son of God (Luke
developing a statement of the doctrine of the
Trinity, the early church encountered a
problem arising from the use of the word
"son." Early church fathers stressed the word
logos, but when attention, shifted
more to the term "son," the problem became more
acute. The difficulty stems from a too-literal
interpretation of the word "son," and from
assuming that the expression refers to origin or
to generation, rather than to relationship;
from understanding the word too much on the analogy
of human experience and therefore
supposing the existence of a Father who existed, prior
to the Son.
Church leaders of the third and fourth centuries
composed a doctrine of the
Trinity
and a statement on the nature of Christ which took account of the problem and
sought to deal with the word "son" in such a
way as to do justice to the deity of Christ as
well as to his human nature. This was not done
without many conferences and councils,
nor without many restatements of doctrine so as to
correct heretical views or distortions
occasioned by too great a stress on one factor to
the neglect of some other. A satisfactory
formulation was arrived at finally at the Council of
Nicea in 325 A. D., after a long
history of discussion and controversy.
The Alexandrian scholar, Origen,
had in the preceding century contributed to the
formulation of the doctrine when he discussed what
he termed the eternal generation of
the Son. He did not mean by the term, however,
exactly what the Nicene theologians later
meant by it. For while Origen
used the term eternal generation, he
nonetheless taught
that Christ was less than God the Father in respect
to essence. He maintained that the
Son
did not participate in the self-subsistent
substance of the deity, and he should not be
thought of as consubstantial (huomoousios) with
the Father.1 Origen's inadequate and
unfortunate definition of the Sonship
of Christ laid the groundwork for the heretical
views of Arius and his
followers on the nature of Christ. Their heresy is being
perpetuated today by the so-called Jehovah's
Witnesses.
The Nicene Council in clarifying the doctrine of
eternal generation adopted the
statement that "the Son is begotten out of
the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of
Light,
very God of very God, begotten not created, consubstantial with the Father
(homoousion toi patri).”2 Exposition of this position and
controversy over it proceeded
for years following, but the statement stood as the
orthodox view on the nature of Christ.
16
THE
TERM "SON OF GOD" IN THE LIGHT OF OLD TESTAMENT IDIOM 17
It is not my intention to try to improve on the
statement. Rather, I intend to show
that the idiomatic usage of the word "son"
in the Old Testament supports the above
statement and sheds light on it. I believe that
such a study will show how Jesus is
properly called the Son of God, the term not
implying anything about his origin, or that
he had an origin. For we must admit that such an
expression as "the eternal generation of
the Son" is a highly sophisticated concept quite
difficult for some professed theologians,
to say nothing of the laity. I suggest that an inductive
study of the idiomatic use of "son"
will make it easier to explain how Jesus is the Son of
God, while avoiding the heretical
idea that he ever had a beginning.
The word "son" is used in the Old
Testament so frequently as to discourage the
effort to count the occurrences. In the overwhelming
majority of cases it is used in
the literal sense of offspring or descendant. In a
significant number of cases, however, the
word "son" is used in the non-literal
sense, indicating a person's profession, his status or
circumstance, or his character.
Following are some examples of this usage, the number of
them being more than sufficient to demonstrate the
point, but employed to show how
common was this usage among the Israelites.
I.
Showing membership in a profession or a guild
1. Sons of the prophets (bene-hannebi’im, 1 Kings
men belonging to a
prophetic band. Likewise, Amos' assertion (Amos
that he had not been a
prophet or the son of a prophet meant that he had not
been a member of such a professional
group, but God called him to the
prophetic office while he was
pursuing another line of work.
2. Sons of oil (bene hayyishar, Zech.
members holding the priestly office.
3. Son of the perfumers (ben-haraqqahim, Neh. 3:8), a member of the perfumers'
trade.
4. Son of the goldsmiths (ben-haraqqahi, Neh.
5. Sons of the gate-keepers (Ezra
6. Sons of the troop (2 Chron.
25: 13) are men of the army.
Non-biblical
texts from ancient times make use of the word in the same idiomatic way.
The Code of Hammur'abi,
para. 188, uses the expression "son of an
artisan" to refer to a
member of the artisan class.3
II.
Showing participation in a state or condition
1. Sons of the exile (bene haggolah, Ezra 4:1;
lived in exile but were now returned to the homeland. The
expression is
equivalent to exiles.
2. Son of a foreign country (ben-nekar, Gen. 17:12, 27; Exod.
foreigner. The term is translated "stranger" in
the KJV.
3. Sons of pledges (2 Kings
KJV.
4. Sons of affliction (Prov.
31:5) are afflicted ones.
5. Sons of passing away (bene halop, Prov.
31:8), are orphans. The KJV failed to
catch the sense of this construction.
6. Son, or sons, of death (1 Sam.
condemned to die.
18
GRACE
JOURNAL
Again,
the Code of Hammurabi gives us an example of the
non-biblical usage of this
idiom. Paragraph 196 refers to the son of a free man
and the son of a slave. The
expressions may be translated properly as a member
of the aristocracy and a member of
the slave class.4
III.
Showing a certain character
1. Son of valor (ben-hayil, 1 Sam.
expression "valiant man.”
2. Son of wise ones (Isa.
3. Sons of rebellion (Num.
KJV "rebels."
4. Son, or sons, of wickedness (Psa. 89:23; 2 Sam.
5. Son of murder (2 Kings
6. Sons of foolishness (Job 30:8) refer to
senseless people.
7. Sons of no name (Job 30:8), translated in KJV
as "children of base men, "
means a dis-reputable brood.
8. Son of smiting (Deut. 25:2) signifies a
person who deserves to be beaten.
9. Son, or sons, of worthlessness (1 Sam. 25:17;
Deut.
be translated "worthless fellow," or "base
fellow." The KJV has virtually left
the term untranslated when
rendering it "son of Belial. "
10. Sons of tumult (Jer.
48:45) are tumultuous people.
IV.
Possessing a certain nature
The expression "son of man" clearly
exhibits the use of the word "son" to show
the possession of a certain nature. Numbers
should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.
. . ." This part of the verse might
be paraphrased as follows: "God is not like a
man, who frequently lies; nor does he
possess the nature of man, who by reason of his
own limitations must often change his
mind." In Psa. 8:4
(Hebrew, 5) man and son of man are put in parallel to each other and
obviously are used as synonyms. The same is true
in Psa. 80:17 (18), and in Job 25:6 and
35:8.
In Job
term "son of man" is used frequently in
Ezekiel as addressed to the prophet (Ezek. 2:1, 3;
3:1, 3, 4, 10;
puts the emphasis on the nature of man.
All the examples in the above categories show
that we are being consistent with a
well established usage of an Old Testament idiom
when we maintain that the expression
"Son
of God,” when applied to Jesus Christ, means possessing the nature of,
displaying
the qualities of, God. By comparison with Old
Testament usage, the term need not refer
to
his origin.
Some may object that the New Testament was not
written in the language of the
Old
Testament, and that therefore the above examples do not really apply. The
obvious
answer is Old Testament thought patterns and Old Testament
idioms abound in the New
Testament,
in
THE
TERM "SON OF GOD" IN THE LIGHT OF OLD TESTAMENT IDIOM 19
spite of the difference in language. This is
certainly true of the idiom in question. Below
is a table of some of the New Testament examples of
the non-literal use of the word
"son."
Barnabas (Acts
of consolation." He
was called that because he was a consoling person.
Sons of thunder was the appellative applied by
Jesus to James and John
(Mark
ter.
Son of peace (Luke 10:6) refers to a peaceful
person.
Sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:7) are those like him in
the exercise of faith.
Sons of disobedience (Eph. 2:2) are those characterized
by disobedience.
Son of perdition (John
It is clear from the above that the New
Testament uses the idiom in the same way
as the Old Testament, especially when indicating
nature or character. We are not
misguided then, in applying this connotation to
"son" in the term "Son of God."
Since we are dealing then with a Semitic idiom,
we can test ourselves for
accuracy in the understanding of it as applied to
Christ, by observing how the Jews
responded or reacted when Jesus taught concerning
his relation as Son to the Father.
They
understood that when Jesus said God was his Father he was making himself equal
with God and sought to kill him for it (John
concerning the Father and Son relationship they accused
him of blasphemy and would
have stoned him, because with such terminology Jesus
made himself God (John
36).
Now the enemies of Jesus did not respond this way because they misunderstood
his
terminology, but because they understood him
perfectly well. They knew that when Jesus
said he was the Son of God he was claiming to be of
the nature of God and equal with
God. It was on this basis that they demanded his
death in the trial before his crucifixion
(John
19:7; Luke 22:70; Mark 14:61-64). We are to understand the expression "Son
of
God"
when applied to Jesus just as his enemies did.
If the term "Son of God" when applied
to Jesus is to be taken in the sense not
strictly literal, that is to say, if the term
when applied to him does not allow for any
thought of his having been brought into
existence, of his beginning, then certain terms
will have to be dealt with which might imply the
contrary. I refer to "firstborn," "only
begotten," and "begotten."
The Term "Firstborn"
The word "firstborn" is employed in
reference to Christ in five places in the New
Testament (Rom.
rightly understand that the
word refers to rank rather than origin. He is first rank
in the whole creation,
first rank in the inhabited world, first rank among the
resurrected, and first rank among
the glorified.
20
GRACE
JOURNAL
None
is comparable to him.
This meaning can be illustrated from the Old
Testament. In the economy of
Ancient
responsibility than the others, and
was rewarded with honor and given two shares
in the family inheritance instead of the single
share that each of his younger brothers
received. Occasionally, however, the eldest son
fell out of favor with his father and was
replaced in the favored position by a younger brother.
Some examples of this are:
Joseph, who replaced Reuben (Gen. 4:3, cf. 1 Chron. 5:1,2)
Ephraim, who replaced Manasseh (Gen. 48:13-20)
Jacob, who replaced Esau (Gen. 27)
Solomon, who replaced Adonijah
(1 Kings 1:5-53)
Examples
can also be adduced from the cuneiform documents from
particularly from Nuzi.5
In such cases as the above the younger became the
firstborn, i. e., he attained to
first rank. The term will not confuse us if we
remember that in the Old Testament it was
not always the one born first who became the
firstborn. The word is used in this sense of
the nation of
upon the scene much later than others, God elevated
the new nation to the place of the
most favored. Therefore He said: "
Therefore,
in the light of Old Testament usage, when the term "firstborn" is
applied to
Christ
it means that he rightly deserves the preferential share in honor and
inheritance; it
does not refer to his origin.
The Term "Only
Begotten"
The word translated "only begotten" (monogenes) is
used nine times in the New
Testament. It is used in reference
to a certain widow's son (Luke 7:2), to Jairus'
only daughter (Luke
times in reference to Christ
(John
referring back to an Old
Testament character (Heb.
The Greek translations of the Old Testament
(Septuagint,
also employ the word nine times, each time
translating a form of the Hebrew word yahid.
Each
one these occurrences refers to an only child, seven of them to an only child
in the
ordinary sense. But twice the term is used of
Isaac the son of Abraham (Gen. 22:2,
Isaac was called Abraham's only son (yahid, monogenes),
although Abraham had
father another male child who was still living. However,
the other male offspring,
Ishmael,
never at any time enjoyed the status of son, as Isaac did. The Code of
Hammurabi illuminates this
THE
TERM "SON OF GOD" IN THE LIGHT OF OLD TESTAMENT IDIOM 21
point. Paragraphs 170, 171 show
that a man's offspring by a slave Woman were not
ordinarily given the rights which belonged to the
sons borne of his wife. Only if the
father in the course of his lifetime had said to the
male offspring of his slave woman (in a
public and official manner), "Thou art my
son," was the slave woman's offspring treated
as a real son of the father. If the father had
made such a declaration, then the slave
woman's offspring was counted among the sons and
given an equal share in the
inheritance of the father's estate. If no such
declaration was made, the offspring of the
slave woman were given gifts and separated from the
household before the inheritance
was divided.
Abraham was evidently at one time eager to
legitimize the child of his slave
woman and count him as a son and heir. At the
incredible announcement that his
own wife Sarah would bare a son, he said: "O
that Ishmael might live before thee"
(Gen. 17:18). But God did not look with favor
upon this, and in due course of time, after
Sarah
gave birth to Isaac, Ishmael was expelled from the
household. "Cast out this
bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman
shall not be heir with my son,
even with Isaac" (Gen. 21:10; Gal.
sense. Though Abraham had several other offspring
(Gen. 25:1-4), he had only one son in
the unique sense, and to him he gave his entire
inheritance (Gen. 25:5, 6). Isaac was his
unique son, and when the New Testament refers to Isaac
(Heb.
only begotten (monogenes).
It is clear from the above that the expression
"only begotten" refers to status. It is
certainly used this way of
Christ. He has status as the unique Son of the Father.
The term does not signify that He had a
beginning, and the consistent testimony
of Scripture is to the
contrary; He was and is eternally God's unique Son.
The Term
"Begotten"
Psalm 2:7, in a passage that traditionally has
been treated as Messianic, reads:
“.
. . Thou art my Son; this day have I
begotten thee." The verse is quoted and applied to
Christ
three times in the New Testament (Acts
word "begotten" into the doctrine of
Christ.
The verb translated "begotten" is used
a great number of times in the Old
Testament
both in the simple (qal) and in the causative (hiphil) conjugations in the
ordinary sense of to generate, or to beget, just
as anyone familiar with the content of the
Old
Testament would expect. It appears twenty-eight times in the fifth chapter of
Genesis
alone in this ordinary sense. As the verb appears in Psa. 2:7, it is pointed by the
Massoretes as from the simple (qal)
conjugation, and is so understood by Gesenius-
Kautzsch-Cowley,6 by Brown, Driver and Briggs, by Franz Delitzsch, and others.
There is no compelling reason, however, why one
may not take this verb to be in
the causative (hiphil) conjugation.
No consonantal changes would be required to so
understand it. The causative conjugation is more natural in
this context moreover, since
its function is not only causative, but
declarative. I will show below the necessity of
seeing the force of this verb
22
GRACE
JOURNAL
to be declarative. That the causative (hiphil) conjugation sometimes functions as
is demonstrated from the following examples:
hisdiq, which means to declare
righteous or justify, as in Exod. 23:7;
Deut.
25:1; and elsewhere.
hirsira’, which means to declare guilty, or condemn, as
in Deut. 25:1;
Exod. 22:8 (English, v. 9);
Job 9:20; and elsewhere.
he’eqis,
which in Job
Taking the verb in Psa.
2:7 to be declarative, i.e., hiphil, that verse may be
translated as follows: “. . . Thou art my Son; this day have I declared thy sonship."
To
understand the verb as declarative removes from it, of course, any necessary
reference to beginnings.
Whether one takes the verb translated
"begotten" in Psa. 2:7 as hiphi1 or as
some other grammatical form, its meaning in that
verse must have to do with the
declaration of sonship.
This assertion is supported by four arguments from Scripture:
(1) The
argument from parallelism. It is of the nature of Hebrew poetry to phrase
itself in parallels. The parallel exhibited in Psa. 2:7 is of the type called synonymous
parallelism. In such the idea expressed in the first
clause is repeated in the second clause
with different vocabulary. In Psa.
2:7 the clause "Thou art my Son" is matched by the
clause "this day have I declared thy sonship," which repeats the same idea.
(2) The
presence of the phrase "this day" (hayyom). The day referred to is
the day
of the declaration the decree,--the decree which
announces the coronation of the king (cf.
v. 6). The coronation day could certainly not be the
day of the king's generation, but it
certainly would be a day in which the proclamation
of his sonship would be in order!
(3) The
fact that the New Testament quotes this verse as a prediction of the
resurrection.
Acts
not to the incarnation, but to the resurrection of
Christ. That being so, the action of that
clause must be declarative, for it is the resurrection
which declares to all the world that
Jesus
Christ is the Son of God. As it is stated in
Christ
our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and
declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the
spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead."
(4) The
content of the following verse (Psa. 2:8) requires
such an interpretation.
Verse
8 has to do with the inheritance rights of the Son, who is to have the nations
for his
inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for
his possession. Now it has been shown
above that formal recognition of sonship
was a prerequisite of heirship. The Son of God,
whose sonship has been
publicly declared by means of the resurrection, is constituted the
proper heir to the nations of this world.
The fifth chapter of the Revelation depicts in a
vision the Son's acceptance of his
heirship, offered to him in Psa. 2:8. There one beholds the Lamb that was slain (and
thereafter resurrected) step forward and receive
that seven-sealed book, the inheritance
document of the
THE
TERM "SON OF GOD" IN THE LIGHT OF OLD TESTAMENT IDIOM 23
nations, and thus assume heirship
of the world. When this vision shall have become a
reality, then shall it be said, "The
kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our
Lord,
and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15).
The above arguments show that the verb
translated "begotten" in Psa. 2:7 does not
refer to generation. The terms "firstborn,"
"only begotten, " and "begotten, "
as used in
the Old and New Testaments concerning Jesus Christ,
do not contradict, but are in
harmony with, what it has been written
concerning the meaning of the word "son" as
applied to him. The terms "son,"
"firstborn," "only begotten," and "begotten," as
defined
by the Bible's own use of them, all declare that
Jesus is the uncreated, ungenerated, co-
eternal, co-equal Son of God the Father.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
William G. T. Shedd, A History of Christian Doctrine (
and
2.
Ibid. ct. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (
6th 1931),
I, 29.
3.
Conveniently consulted in English translation in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament, ed. by James B. Pritchard,
2nd ed. (
Press,
4.
Ibid., p. 175.
5.
Collected in the author's unpublished (except by microfilm) doctoral
dissertation,
Systems
of Land Tenure in Ancient
35.
6.
Gesenius' Hebrew
Grammar, ed. by
Cowley, 2nd English ed. (London: Oxford
University Press, 1910), p. 120.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu