To begin with, we need to trace back where "Son of God" originated. It originated in the Old Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures and it was applied to the king of Israel.
For example, in Psalm 2:7*, it states:
I will tell of the decree of the Lord:
He said to me, ‘You are my son;
today I have begotten you.
This is addressed to the King of Israel and indicates a special relationship between the King of Israel (Most likely David in this passage) and the God of Israel. Therefore, this is a designation of a special relationship between God and the King.
For another example, 2 Samuel 7:14A states:
I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.
This is a passage regarding Solomon as the new king and God as his father. Again, it indicates that "Son of God" is a special relationship between God and the king.
Therefore, we can see what the title, "Son of God" designates, so let us turn our attention to the Gospel According to Mark, the gospel without a birth story.
When we turn our attention to the beginning of Mark, we see that it begins with the following: "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mk 1:1). Therefore the author of Mark is establishing that Jesus is the Son of God but in what fashion?
This is answered when Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist in the following verses. Mark 1:9-11 states:
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’
Note, what the "voice from heaven" (presumably God) says to Jesus in verse 11: "You are my Son, the Beloved: with you I am well pleased."
What did God say to David in Psalm 2:7? "You are my Son; today I have begotten you."
Incredible. Jesus is the Son of God in that he is the Messiah (Christ [English] = Christos [Greek] = Messiach [Hebrew], which means the "Anointed One") of Israel and later, all nations. However, Jesus is a different type of king, in that his kingdom is the "Kingdom of God," which has all of it's own implications. However, he is anointed by the spirit, just like David was and seemingly given the spirit at his baptism.
This a lot of implications for soteriology (theory or doctrine of salvation) and what the good news of Jesus really is, of which I will explore in a later blog.
As for now, please leave comments and remarks. I open to constructive criticism but please no hate speech or negative remarks about my eternal "soul" and/or character.
*All biblical quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.
Posts
2 comments:
I appreciate what you're doing here and in your FB note Seth.
One critical comment I have might be this: can one simultaneously: (1) raise questions about the reliability of what the text represents (e.g. by questioning the literal accuracy of the genealogical information presented by Matthew and Luke) AND (2) make an argument predicated on accepting the literal accuracy of that information?
Note that your argument that Jesus can't be both born of a virgin and Son of David through Joseph's lineage is technically a challenge to the logical consistency of the tradition. In other words, your argument is theological, attacking the tradition on the grounds of its inner inconsistency. He's not Joseph's son!
To me, what is interesting about the tradition is that this objection, though obvious, is never given any credit in the debates.
On the other hand, maybe it is tacitly acknowledged? Whereas Christian tradition made mountainous heaps of practice and theology regarding Mary, the "theotokos," with the Catholic church eventually elevating her to almost divine status... the tradition has done very little with the title "Son of David," preferring the less obviously royal and Davidic term "Son of God," which could likewise lend itself more easily to an elevated Christology.
I'm not sure where I'm going with these thoughts but anyway, keep plugging along. You sound like a young F. C. Baur here or something.
Thanks, Dr. Baldwin.
Matthew is attempting to state that Jesus is both the son of David and born of a virgin, which cannot be because of afore-mentioned arguments.
I should mention that he since he cannot be born of a virgin (this is a literary interpolation) and of Joseph (a Son of David), that the logical explanation is that he is the son of Joseph.
He was adopted by "God" at his baptism, in a similar fashion to David being anointed as king in the Hebrew Scriptures with the given exception that he literally assumed into the Godhead after his death.
I am an adoptionist when it comes to the divinity of Christ. This is my argument.
OR
Are you saying that since since the consistency of the tradition is illogical because Mary became pregnant without Joseph and a reason (the virgin birth) had to be made up to make up for this?
If that's the case, then the whole tradition goes to pot.
Post a Comment