Journal: Grace Journal
Volume: GJ 06:2 (Spring 1965)
Article: The Term “Son of God” in the Light of Old Testament Idiom
Author: S. Herbert Bess

GJ 6:2 (Spr 65) p. 16

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 1:35; John 1:34; 3:18; Acts 9:20; Romans 1:4; et passim). In 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 (omoousios) 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 clar...