“God Sent Forth His Son…”
“when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son…” (Galatians 4:4)
“God sent forth His Son into the world…” (John 3:17)
This new study series will examine the early Christian concept of the incarnation—the idea that the (pre-existent) Son of God became a flesh-and-blood (incarnate) human being in the person of Jesus. In particular, we will be considering both the nature and purpose of the incarnation, as this belief originally crystalized and developed within first-century Christianity, as attested in the New Testament Scriptures. The question of the goal and purpose of the incarnation is especially relevant in light of the seasonal celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and makes for a fitting subject to be discussed this Spring during the Lenten/Easter season.
Earlier this year, during the Christmas season, I began a series on the Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in the Pauline Letters, discussing in some detail nearly all of the relevant passages. The remaining articles that were planned, dealing with the specific theme of the Sonship of Jesus, and the idea of God sending forth His Son, will be folded into this current series.
Introduction: The Development of Early Christology
An important point, to be addressed at the outset, involves the place of the incarnation-concept within the earliest Christology—viz., the view of Christ held by the first generation(s) of believers, during the first century A.D. Contextually, this may be summarized by the heading of the Gospel of Mark, regarded by most commentators as the earliest of the surviving Gospels (c. 60-70 A.D.):
“(The) beginning of the good message of Yeshua (the) Anointed [(the) Son of God]” (1:1)
The words “(the) Son of God” (ui(ou= qeou=) are bracketed [] because they are absent from a number of key manuscripts (a* Q 28c al), and so were possibly not part of the original text of Mk 1:1. However, even if the words were not originally present, they were doubtless added (or included) very early on, probably before the end of the first century. The wording establishes a basic tenet of Christology, identifying Jesus as the “Son of God”. This identification is the cornerstone of the incarnation-concept, particularly as it came to be expressed within orthodox Christology, since it entails (and implies) the idea that the pre-existent Son (of God) became a flesh-and-blood human being, in the person of Jesus.
Yet, the designation at the beginning of the Markan Gospel gives us no further information about what it means to say that Jesus is the “Son of God”, apart from the definite juxtaposition of the expression with the title Xristo/$ (“[the] Anointed [One]”, i.e., Messiah = Heb. j^yv!m* [m¹šîaµ]). This, in fact, is most significant regarding the earliest Christian understanding of Jesus as God’s Son. It indicates that the Divine Sonship of Jesus is to be understood primarily, if not exclusively, in a Messianic sense—that is, in terms of Jesus’ identity as the Anointed One (Messiah) of God.
This association, established so clearly, and in such a matter-of-fact manner, at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark, is confirmed by a careful study of the earliest strands of Christian Tradition found in the New Testament Scriptures. These may be divided into three main categories: (1) the Gospel Tradition, particularly that of the Synoptic Gospels, the core Synoptic Tradition; (2) evidence of early Christian preaching (proclamation [kerygma] of the Gospel) preserved in the sermon-speeches of the book of Acts; and (3) the (undisputed) letters of Paul.
The Gospel Tradition as it came to be represented by the core Synoptic Tradition (such as in the Gospel of Mark), developed during the period of c. 35-60 A.D. The earliest Christian preaching, based on the historical time-frame presented within the Acts-narrative, covers a similar period. Meanwhile, the letters of Paul—that is, those where Pauline authorship is certain or undisputed—were written during the latter half of this period. It will be worth surveying, however briefly, Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, as evidenced within each of these sources.
1. The Gospel (Synoptic) Tradition
In examining the Synoptic Tradition, I focus primarily on the Gospel of Mark. Apart from the heading in 1:1 (v.l., see above), there are seven references to Jesus as God’s Son (ui(o/$).
For the purposes of this survey, I exclude all instances where the specific expression “(the) son of man” ([o(] ui(o\$ [tou=] a)nqrw/pou) is used; these were discussed at length in an earlier series (“Who Is This Son of Man…?”). While not unrelated to the Divine Sonship of Jesus (esp. in the Gospel of John), the expression/title “Son of Man” has a very different emphasis. It is actually closer in significance to the specific idea of incarnation (viz., Jesus as a real human being). As such, it is certainly relevant for this series, and will be addressed at a number of junctures in the upcoming articles.
The first such reference occurs early in the narrative, in the Baptism scene (1:9-11 par) which marks the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Following the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus (v. 10), the Divine voice from heaven declares: “You are my Son, the (be)loved, in you I think good [i.e. I think good/well of you]” (v. 11). The wording of this declaration, along with the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, confirms the observation made above (on the heading [v. 1]), that the Divine Sonship of Jesus is to be understood here in a Messianic sense. That is to say, it identifies Jesus as the Messiah—one specially chosen (‘anointed’) by God.
The Divine/heavenly voice at the Baptism would seem to allude both to Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1—each of these represents a key Messianic reference that was adopted by early Christians and applied to Jesus (as the Messiah). The two verses, respectively, identify Jesus as a Messianic Prophet (Isa 42:1), and as the royal/Davidic Messiah (Ps 2:7). The presence of the Spirit upon Jesus applies more readily to his identity as a Messianic Prophet—particularly the anointed prophet/herald of Isa 61:1ff (but cf. also Isa 11:2 and 42:1). For further discussion, see the recent article (in the new Studies on the Spirit feature); cf. also the articles on Isa 42:1ff and 61:1ff in the series “The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition”, and Parts 2–3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.
Isaiah 61:1ff is particularly prominent in the Lukan version of the narrative, where this Scripture features in the Nazareth episode (4:16-30, vv. 18-21ff), marking the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, following the Baptism and Temptation scenes. Thus, the coming of the Spirit at the Baptism, along with the declaration of Sonship by the Divine/heavenly voice (3:21-22), is explained implicitly in terms of Jesus’ identity as the anointed Prophet/herald of Isa 61:1ff (cf. also the context of 4:1, 14).
As it happens, the Lukan author is following the Synoptic Tradition, which divides the Gospel narrative into two halves. In the first half, the Galilean period, the focus is on Jesus as the Messianic Prophet, according to two figure-types (Elijah and Moses), that are essentially blended together in the figure of the Anointed herald of Isa 61:1ff, and then are combined (visually) in the Transfiguration scene. Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah is more or less reserved for the second half of the narrative (the Jerusalem period).
The Transfiguration scene (Mk 9:2-8 par) is significant from this standpoint, in terms of the thematic structure of the narrative. It marks the end of the Galilean period, and begins the transition to the Jerusalem period, by effectively introducing (vv. 9-13ff) the journey to Jerusalem (chap. 10). Jesus’ role as the Messianic Prophet reaches its climax in the Transfiguration scene, as he is dramatically associated with (and implicitly identified with) the Messianic Prophet figure-types of Moses and Elijah. And, in this context, for good measure, the declaration of the Divine/heavenly voice at the Baptism is essentially repeated, 9:7 (in Matthew’s version, the two declarations are identical [cf. Matt 3:17; 17:5]), confirming Jesus’ as God’s Son (in this Messianic sense).
The Messianic significance is brought out especially in Luke’s version of the declaration (9:35), where (according to the best textual reading) the designation “chosen” (lit., “[one] gathered out”, e)klelegme/no$) is used, rather than “(be)loved”. Cf. the comparable designation e)klekto/$ in 23:35, where its Messianic import is equally clear. The same substantive adjective o( e)klekto/$ (“the [one] gathered out”, i.e., “the chosen [one]”) also occurs in some manuscripts of the Johannine version of the Divine/heavenly declaration at the Baptism (Jn 1:34 v.l.), indicating that the Messianic designation (“the Chosen [One]”) was, to some extent at least, interchangeable with the designation “Son” (of God).
As for the remaining five references (in Mark) to Jesus as God’s Son, two occur as declarations by evil (demon) spirits (3:11; 5:7 pars). These are best explained in terms of Jesus’ miracle-working (i.e., exorcism) power, as the Anointed/Messianic Prophet of God (cf. Isa 61:1ff and the figure-type of Elijah); the demon-spirits recognize this identity, and (implicitly) the power/presence of the Spirit of God upon Jesus (cf. Matt 12:28 par, in the context of vv. 18-21 [citing Isa 42:1-3, see above]).
The final two Son-references in the Gospel occur at climactic points in the Passion narrative (14:61f; 15:39). The question posed by the high priest to Jesus seems to echo the question posed by Jesus to his disciples in 8:27, along with the confession-response by Peter (v. 29). Matthew’s version makes the association explicit, by presenting Peter’s confession (16:16) and the high priest’s confession (26:63) in nearly identical wording. Underlying this Matthean development is the essential juxtaposition of the titles “Anointed One” and “Son of God”, which we saw already in the heading of Mark (1:1), and which is repeated in the confessional context of 14:61-62; cf. also 15:39, where the centurion’s confession (of Jesus as God’s “Son”) punctuates a Passion-narrative which features a strong Messianic emphasis (14:61-62; 15:2, 9ff, 17-18, 26, 32, 35-36).
By comparison, the Son-reference of 13:32 par is more difficult to place or to explain within the Tradition. The self-designation of Jesus simply as “the Son” is more in keeping with the usage in the Gospel of John. The only other Synoptic occurrence is in a saying from the “Q” material (Matt 11:27 / Lk 10:22); cf. also Matt 28:19. In the immediate context of both Mk 13:32 par and Matt 11:27 par, we find references to Jesus as “the Son of Man”, which is his more regular form of self-designation in the Synoptics.
Both Matthew and Luke generally follow Mark’s Gospel in terms of these Son-references (apart from the “Q” saying in Matt 11:27 par, mentioned in the note above). Evidence of Christological development or expansion is actually quite rare. Perhaps the clearest example can be seen in the Matthean forms of Peter’s confession, and the corresponding question to Jesus by the high priest 16:16; 26:63, cf. above); and note the similar confession by the disciples, earlier in the narrative, 14:33. The use of the title “Son of God” by the Devil in the Temptation scene (“Q” material, Matt 4:6 / Lk 4:3, 9) corresponds to the declarations by the demons in Mk 3:11; 5:7 pars (cf. above). Finally, it may be noted that, in Matthew’s version of the Passion narrative, the climactic confession by the centurion (Matt 27:54) is further enhanced by the references to Jesus as the “Son of God” preceding in vv. 40, 43; comparison with the core Synoptic (Markan) version (cf. above) only confirms that this use of the title “Son of God” is fundamentally Messianic in nature.
Indeed, from this survey, it would seem to be clear that the Sonship of Jesus, and the use of the title “Son of God”, in the Gospel Tradition is primarily (if not exclusively) Messianic. It is tied to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah—both the royal/Davidic Messiah and the Messianic Prophet figure-types (on which, cf. above)—an identity that is established at the Baptism of Jesus (that is, at the beginning of his public ministry), with the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, accompanied by the Divine/heavenly declaration of Sonship. In the Synoptic narrative, this Messianic identification continues throughout the course of Jesus’ ministry, climaxing with the moment of his death.
2. The Early Gospel Preaching (Kerygma) in Acts
At first glance, it is rather striking how few references there are to Jesus as God’s Son in the book of Acts. Given the relative importance of the designation in the Synoptic Gospels (including the Gospel of Luke, see the discussion in section 1. above), we would perhaps expect to find a much larger number of references. There are two key references in Acts—9:20 and 13:33. These are significant in at least two respects: (a) they serve (in the narrative) as examples of Paul’s missionary preaching (see section 3. below), and (b) they confirm the fundamental Messianic significance of the designation (“Son of God”) evidenced throughout the Gospel Tradition.
In particular, note the same basic juxtaposition of the titles “Anointed One” (xristo/$) and “Son of God” (ui(o\$ qeou=) which we highlighted in our analysis of the Synoptic Tradition (above). The correspondence of the titles becomes quite clear when we consider how the Lukan author frames the summary narrative of Paul’s first preaching of the Gospel (in Damascus), 9:20-22; see how Paul’s preaching activity is summarized:
-
- “he proclaimed (of) Yeshua that
‘This (one) is the Son of God'” (v. 20)
- “he was driving together (the point) that
‘This (one) is the Anointed'” (v. 22)
The titles “Anointed One” and “Son of God” are precisely parallel, and, at least to some extent, are interchangeable; this confirms that the title “Son of God”, as applied to Jesus in this context of the early Gospel preaching, was used in a Messianic sense. The same is true with the citation of Psalm 2:7 (by Paul) in 13:33, a usage of the Psalm verse (as a Messianic reference) which conforms to the allusion in the declaration (by the Divine/heavenly voice) at Jesus’ Baptism in the Gospel Tradition (cf. above). In a variant reading of the Lukan form of the declaration (3:22), Psalm 2:7 is explicitly quoted, implying that it was at the Baptism (with the coming upon Jesus of the Spirit) that Jesus came to be ‘born’ as God’s Son.
What is important to note about the use of Psalm 2:7 in the Antioch sermon-speech (by Paul) in Acts 13 (v. 33ff) is that the Messianic reference is applied, not to Jesus’ Baptism, but to his Resurrection. The implication, then, according to this preaching, is that Jesus was ‘born’ as God’s Son when he was raised from the dead. This aspect of Jesus’ Sonship is not emphasized in the Synoptic Gospels, but does seem to be a key point of emphasis that orientates the early proclamation (kerygma) of the Gospel. Note, for example, the third section (vv. 29-36) of the Pentecost sermon-speech by Peter in chapter 2, which, in many important ways, matches the Antioch sermon-speech by Paul later in chap. 13. As a Scripture text, the well-established Messianic verse of Psalm 110:1 is used (cf. Mark 12:36f par; Heb 1:13, etc), but it is clearly applied to the resurrection of Jesus, with his exaltation to the “right hand” (v. 1b) of God in heaven (on the importance of this particular motif for early Christology, cf. Mk 14:62 par; Acts 2:33; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22). Even more striking is the wording that Peter (and the author of Acts) uses at the conclusion of the sermon:
“let all (the) house of Yisrael know that God made him (to be) both Lord and Anointed [Xristo/$], this Yeshua whom you put to the stake [i.e., crucified]!” (v. 36)
The declaration is clear enough: God made Jesus to be the Anointed One, through his resurrection (and exaltation); this is comparable to the idea in 13:33 (citing Psalm 2:7), that, when Jesus was raised/exalted by God, he came to be born as God’s Son. The designation “Lord” (ku/rio$) in 2:36 indicates a Divine status and distinction comparable to that of “Son of God”. While this sort of language and thinking would be highly problematic from the standpoint of the developed (orthodox) Christology of later generations, it would seem to reflect the earliest Christian understanding of the Gospel accurately enough.
Many scholars, however, would question the extent to which the book of Acts accurately preserves or portrays the early apostolic preaching, as it would have occurred (historically) in the period c. 35-50 A.D. This is an issue that I have dealt with on several occasions, including in my exegetical series “The Speeches of Acts”. I am not able to go into the matter in any detail here, but will only state my conviction that the sermon-speeches of Acts preserve genuine elements and features of the early preaching, while (at the same time) also being thoroughly Lukan in style as a finished literary product.
The preaching recorded in the book of Acts demonstrates two clear points of emphasis for the early Christian understanding of Jesus as the “Son of God: (1) the Messianic identity of Jesus, and (2) the fact that Jesus, after his death and resurrection, was exalted to a Divine status and position in heaven (at God’s “right hand”, Ps 110:1b [cf. the discussion above]). The main apologetic concern for the early apostolic missionaries, in both of these respects, centered on the death of Jesus. His death was, naturally enough, the necessary precursor to his exaltation; and, yet, at the same time, it proved a great difficulty for their missionary preaching to other Jews. The suffering and death of the Messiah was not at all part of the Messianic expectation for Jews at the time (on this subject, see the article in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). It is repeatedly mentioned in Acts how the missionaries took great pains to demonstrate (from the Scriptures) that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and die, and thus proving that Jesus could be (and was) the promised Messiah—see esp. Acts 3:18; 5:42; 9:22; 17:3; 18:5, 28; 26:23, and similarly in the Lukan Gospel, Lk 24:26f, 45-46; the teaching echoes the Passion-predictions of Jesus in the Synoptics (cf. Lk 9:22; 18:31ff par). Note also, in this regard, the importance of Isa 52:13-53:12 as a Messianic prophecy, serving as the primary Scripture text for the idea that the Messiah (i.e., the Servant of YHWH) would suffer and die (cf. Acts 8:32-35).
3. The Pauline Letters
Paul, in his letters, generally follows the main contours of the early Christology, with regard to the Sonship of Jesus. The main points of emphasis from the Gospel Tradition and the early apostolic preaching (discussed in sections 1. and 2. above) are continued—viz., the identification of Jesus as the Messiah (i.e., Sonship in a Messianic sense), and that his identity as God’s Son is tied specifically to the Resurrection. This last aspect is especially clear in what is presumably the earliest Son-reference in the surviving letters, 1 Thess 1:10. Most of his other references to Jesus as God’s Son can also be viewed entirely from the standpoint of this early exaltation-Christology—see 1 Cor 1:9; 15:28; 2 Cor 1:19; Col 1:13, etc.
However, there are other references which indicate a rudimentary pre-existence-Christology, along with an accompanying incarnational aspect. The earliest such occurrence is in the letter to the Galatians (4:4), the dating of which remains disputed, though some time in the early-mid 50s (c. 54?) seems probable. By the time of his letter to the Romans, several years later (c. 57-58), this Christological understanding appears to have become more prominent in his thought—as can be glimpsed from the wording in 1:3; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32. These references (all of which will be discussed) likely preceded the writing of Philippians (c. 60), with its famous ‘Christ-hymn’ (2:6-11), in which the idea of the Divine pre-existence of Jesus features most prominently.
Paul was, it seems, one of the first Christians to express such a pre-existence (and incarnational) Christology. There does not appear to be any real evidence for such a view prior to the mid-50s. As noted in the analysis above, this Christology is virtually absent from the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts. In the earlier strands of the Tradition recorded in these texts, the Messianic identity and Divine Sonship of Jesus was seen as being established either: (a) at the beginning of his public ministry (i.e., the time of his baptism), or (b) with his resurrection (and exaltation to heaven). To be sure, the Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke evince the view that Jesus was the Messiah from the very moment of his birth; however, even in these narratives, there is no indication of Divine pre-existence. The declaration of Jesus’ Sonship in Luke 1:32, 35, applies to the time of his birth (note the future tense of the announcement, “he will be…”, “he will be called…”), and is also still understood in a Messianic sense (as is clear from the context).
With Paul, however, a new Christological understanding begins to emerge. Paul may not have been the very first believer to express the idea of Jesus’ pre-existence, or of the incarnation (in the person of Jesus) of the pre-existent Son, but he was doubtless influential in the development and spread of this Christology. We can see the Pauline influence, for example, in the book of Hebrews (passages to be discussed). It is not certain what influence Paul may have had upon the Johannine writings; for the most part, they seem to be the product of an entirely separate line of Tradition. In any case, it is in the Gospel of John where this early development of the pre-existence and incarnational Christology receives its flourish.
In the articles within this series, we will attempt to trace this development, beginning with the earliest Pauline references. Our starting point will be the confessional statement in Romans 1:3-4, for the reason that many commentators believe Paul has, in these verses, adapted an earlier (existing) credal formula. If so, then the Christology expressed in these verses may, at least to some extent, pre-date Paul’s own writings. It is often thought that the ‘Christ-hymn’ of Phil 2:6-11 also represents an earlier confessional statement (in poetic-hymnic form) that Paul has utilized. Both of these texts are of particular significance for the way that they join together the older exaltation-Christology (Rom 1:4; Phil 2:9-11) with the newer pre-existence-Christology (Rom 1:3; Phil 2:6-8), and include the specific idea of the incarnation, at least in a rudimentary form. This conjunction is especially clear in the case of the Philippians hymn, but it would seem to be present in Rom 1:3-4 as well; at least, it is possible to read the verses in this way.
