“Son of God” in Judaism
“Son of God” in Judaism
In the context of our other observations about Jesus’ ministry, the title “son of God” surely meant more than simply intimacy, although it included that. Speaking of God’s Messiah as his “Son” may not have been common in early Judaism, but it was certainly intelligible — though in various senses.
Scripture and Jewish tradition apply the “Son of God” title to those who belong to God;88 to Israel (most commonly);89 and to a righteous person in general. 90 Angels, too, could be called “sons of God,”91 although given that angels were not human, and “son of God” bore many other senses, probably no Jew would interpret a human as “God’s son” in the angelic sense without an explicit statement to that effect in the narrative.92 Yet the problem with most “son of God” parallels, both hellenistic and Jewish, is that early Christians controversially proclaimed Jesus as not merely a son of God, but the Son of God, his beloved and unique Son.93 How did the early Jesus movement employ the title?
The most appropriate Jewish background of the term when applied to Jesus was the messianic sense. This usage need not rule out figurative nuances of sonship like obedience, submission,94 intimacy and delegated authority95 that would be part of the metaphor in a Jewish context. But the notion of special sonship distinct from Israel or the righteous (such as we have seen in Mk 13:32 or Matt 11:27//Lk 10:22) demands something more, and Scripture provided the content. Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam 7:1496 indicated that God would adopt David’s royal descendants (his “house,” 2 Sam 7:11), starting with Solomon, as his own sons, perhaps borrowing this special status from Israel (Ex 4:22) and from divine adoption of kings in other ancient Near Eastern cultures.97
Ancient Israel’s temple cultus came to celebrate this royal promise (Ps 2:7; 89:26-29).98 The prophets reminded God’s people of the qualification of obedience (cf. 2 Sam 7:14b), even suggesting that the royal tree would become a stump and the house a tent until a time of restoration came (Is 11:1; Amos 9:11). But the prophets also recognized the promise to David (e.g., Is 55:3; Jer 33:17-26; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Zech 12:10), sometimes fulfilled in his lineage or his ultimate descendant. This promised reign would last forever, so that the king would be, in Isaiah’s words, a “mighty God” (Is 9:6-7) — a title applied in the context to YHWH himself (Is 10:21).99
Although hope for an eschatological anointed leader or leaders ran high, and the Davidic messiah remained prominent in many expectations, “son of God” was no more a common description of him in this era than people commonly thought of Dan 7 when they used the more generic expression “son of man.”100 But neither was the usage unknown. In at least some circles, 2 Sam 7:14 was interpreted with direct reference to the Davidic messiah as “son of God” (as we may note from some clear Qumran examples).101 Some other Dead Sea Scrolls texts (like 4Q369 frg. 1, 2.6-7,102 and, on some views, also 4Q246 col. 2, line 1)103 have been thought to apply the phrase similarly.104 Hints may be found that others also understood Ps 2 Messianically in the period of formative Christianity.105 Early Christians normally applied this Old Testament title especially to the king’s enthronement rather than his birth (Rom 1:3-4; Heb 1:5; 5:5; Acts 13:33).
But while Jesus’ use of “the son” probably involves messiahship, Jesus’ usage noted above also redefines the character of his messiahship. Jesus’ distinctive use of the title seems to emphasize more his intimacy with the Father than his royal status, and in some texts particularly underlines a unique and exalted role. Jesus is Israel’s messiah, but even more than this, he is the Father’s special son.