SON
143
SON
a type of the Messias, was honoured with the title
"son of God". But the Messias, the Chosen One,
the Elect of God, was par excellence called the
Son of God (Ps. ii, 7). Even Wellhausen admits that
Ps. ii is Messianic (see Hast., "Diet, of the Bible",
IV, 571). The prophecies regarding the Messias
became clearer as time went on, and the result is
ably summed up by Sanday (ibid.): "The Scriptures
of which wc have been speaking mark so many
different contributions to the total result, but the
result, when it is attained, has the completeness of
an organic whole. A Figure w;is created — projected
as it were ujion the clouds — which was invested with
all the attributes of a person. And the minds of men
were turned towards it in an attitude of expectation.
It makes no matter that the lines of the Figure are
drawn from different originals. They meet at last
in a single portraiture. And we should never have
known how perfectly they meet if we had not the New
Testament picture to compare with that of the Old
Testament. The most literal fulfilment of prediction
would not be more conclusive proof that all the
course of the world and all the threads of history
are in one guiding Hand." The Messias besides being
the Son of God was to be called Emmanuel (God
with us), Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty,
the Father of the world to come, Prince of Peace (Is.,
viii, 8; ix, 6) (see Messi.^s).
In the New Tkst.^ment. — The title "the Son of God" is frequently applied, to Jesus Christ in the Gospels and Epistles. In the latter it is everywhere employed as a short formula for ex^^ressing His Divinity (Sanday I; and this usage throws light on the meaning to "be attaclieil to it in many pa.ssages of the Gospels. The angel announced; "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High . . . the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke, i, 32, 3.5). Nathaniel, at his first meeting, called Him the Son of God (.lohn, i, 49). The devils called Him by the same name, the Jews ironically, and the .Vpostles after He qvielled llie storm. In all these cases its meaning was equi^•alent to the MessiiW, at least. But much more is implied in the confession of St. Peter, the testimony of the Father, and the words of Jesus Christ.
Confession of Si. Peter. — We read in Matt., xvi, 15, 16: "Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the li\'ing God. And Jesus answer- ing, said to him: Bles.sed art thou, .Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not re\'eale<l it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The parallel passages have: "Thou art the Christ" (Mark, viii, 29), "The Christ of God" (Luke, ix, 20). There can be no doubt that St. Matthew gives the original form of the expression, and that St. .Mark and St. Luke in giving "the Christ" (the Messias), instead, used it in the sense in which they understood it when they wrote, viz. as equivalent to "the incarnate Son of God" (see Rose, VI). Sanday, writing of St. Peter's confession, says: "the context clearly proves that Matthew had before him some further tradition, possibly that of th(> Logia, but in any case a tradition that has the look of being original " (Hastings, "Diet, of the Bible"). .\s Rose well points out, in the minds of the E%angelists Jesus Christ was the Messias because He was the Son of God, and not the Son of God because He was the Me.ssi:is.
Testimony of the Father. — (1) M the Baptism. — " .\nd Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo. the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. .And behold a voice from heaven, sajnng: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt., iii, 16, 17). "And there came a voice from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well plea.sed" (Mark, i, 11; Luke, iii, 22).
(2) At the Transfiguration. — "And lo, a voice out
of the cloud, saj-ing: This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased: hear ye him" (Matt., xvii,
5; Mark, ix, 6; Luke, Lx, 35). Though Rose admits
that the words spoken at the Baptism need not
necessarily mean more than what was suggested by the
Old Testament, \-iz. Son of God is equal to the Messias,
still, as the same words were used on both occasions,
it is likely they had the same meaning in both cases.
The Transfiguration took place within a week after
St. Peter's confession, and the words were used in the
meaning in which the three disciples would then
understand them; and at the Baptism it is probable
that only Christ, and perhaps the Baptist, heard them,
so that it is not necessarj' to interpret them accord-
ing to the current opinions of the crowd. Even so
cautious a critic as the Anglican Professor Sanday
writes on these passages: "And if, on the occasions
in question, the Spirit of God did intimate prophet-
ically to chosen witnesses, more or fewer, a revelation
couched partly in the language of the ancient Scrip-
tures, it would by no means follow that the meaning
of the revelation was limited to the meaning of the
older Scriptures. On the contrarj', it would be hkely
enough that the old words would be charged with
new meaning — that, indeed the revelation . . .
would yet be in substance a new revelation. . . .
And we may assume that to His (Christ's) mind the
annovmcement 'Thou art my Son' meant not only
all that it ever meant to the most enlightened seers
of the past, but, yet more, all that the response of
His ovra heart told Him that it meant in the present.
. . . But it is possible, and we should be justified in
supjiosing — not by way of dogmatic assertion but
by way of pious beUef — in view of the later history
and the progress of subsequent revelation, that the
words were intended to suggest a new truth, not
hitherto made known, viz. that the Son was Son not
only in the sense of the Messianic King, or of an
Ideal Peojile, but that the idea of sonship was ful-
filled in Him in a way yet more mysterious and yet
more es.sential; in other words, that He was Son,
not merely in prophetic revelation, but in actual
transcendent fact before the foundation of the
world" (Hastings, "Diet, of the Bible").
Te.-itimony of Jesus Christ. — (1) The Sjmoptics. — The key to this is contained in His words, after the Resurrection: "I ascend to my Father and to your Father" (John, xx, 17). He always spoke of my Father, never of our Father. He said to the disciples: "Thus then shall 2/0!/ pray: Our Father ", etc. He everj'where draws the clearest possible distinction between the way in which God was His Father and in which He was the Father of all creatures. His expressions clearly pro\e that He claimed to be of the same nature with God; and His claims to Divine Sonship are contained verj' clearly in the Synoptic Gospels, though not as frequently as in St. John.
"Did you not know, that I must be about my father's business?" (Luke, ii, 49); "Not every one that saith to me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingilom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the king- dom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and ca.st out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me you, that work iniquity" (Matt., vii, 21-23). "Everj'one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (Matt., x, 32). ".\t that time Jesus an- swered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, I>ord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and pruflent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but
