Let us consider the difference between Jesus’ identity as the son of God and the saints’ identity as sons of God. What boundaries separate between the two? What rules say that Jesus’ authority as the Son of God does not get passed to the sons of God also? When we call ourselves sons of God how is this different from Jesus calling Himself the Son of God. As a followup to discussions on sonship, this article will tackle some of the sonship implications as they pertains to the saints.

If Jesus can be called “Son of God” and it imply a special relationship, what does it say about us that we may be sons of God?[1] The Scriptures never speak of divine authority from His people. The Children of Israel were also called God’s Children. They called God “our Father.” [2] The special nature of Jesus’ Sonship is found in the exclusive title. That is the problem the Jews had with Jesus claiming exclusive rights.[3] Perhaps their delicacy on the issue had to do with rights within the family metaphor. If Jesus claimed special sonship rights, then that might exclude the sons of Israel from their inheritance rights.[4] In a sense that is both right and wrong. Jesus, as the firstborn, does take all hope for “rights” away from others claiming sonship.[5] Yet, at the same time, Jesus is the only one who can bring the hope of sonship to men.[6] The rest of this article will deal with these two points.

First, Jesus is the firstborn, which implies special rights within the family metaphor.[7] More important than just being a son of someone was to be the firstborn.[8] It is important to remember that “Firstborn” began as a chronological term but the Bible often uses it as a status based on choice or merit.[9] A similar term might be “uniquely begotten.”[10] Abraham had a son before the son of promise, yet this firstborn is driven away. Isaac inherits the firstborn rights, (being the first and only born of Sarah).[11] Jacob finagles the firstborn rights and blessings, although he was the second born.[12] Reuben lost his firstborn privileges due to his misconduct.[13] Ephraim was blessed as the firstborn, though second.[14]

We find a pattern that the firstborn status is important, though not always determined by birth order. The right of the firstborn is that all others in the family are subservient to him.[15] Once the patriarch is past the time of leading, the firstborn becomes the head of the family. As head, the others, whether brothers or servants, must now obey the firstborn. This position is exclusive and, as far as we can see in the bible, is never shared. Jesus’ status as firstborn of all creation implies that he has the right as head of the church, and the right to our submission.[16] Even if we make ourselves equal with Jesus as sons, the NT writers make it clear how that would never work.

Second, Jesus, as head of the family and mediator for us, can now call into the family whom he wills to partake of the rights of sonship. This adoption process was not and still is not overly uncommon. By standards of law in ancient and modern cultures, adoption makes the adoptee legal sons and daughters of the adopter. We are not born of God like Jesus is, therefore cannot have the rights of the firstborn, but we can still be adopted into His family. God made us in His image, but we are not divine because of it. Through Jesus, God remakes us into a new person. We could only do this because he chose to call us brethren.[17] There is no room for illegitimate sons.[18] How does one become a son then? And what rights would follow?

The adoption process in ancient cultures may not have been so drawn out as in today’s. The purpose was also slightly different. The reason for adoption was not as much for the purpose of having children or caring for orphans. Most men would have just taken another wife for that purpose if it was not prohibited by their moral standards[19] or just hosted a charity. Instead, adoption was considered primarily for the sake of passing on the family title.[20] Adoption was not about the adopted but the adoptee. Along with the title came the birthright. Since this was the primary motivation, adoptees were not always younger, but sometimes older trusted men. An elderly couple with no heir would not have the time to raise a child. Rather, they might choose someone close or within their household that they trusted to represent their family well. Abraham was of this mind before Isaac was born. He assumed that his head servant would become the heir of his title, even to the seed promise.[21] God was against this and stressed that the child would be Abram’s own, not adopted. Legitimacy is then key to inheriting the promises of God. One must be children of Abraham in order to be apart of God’s household too.[22] But how does that come? Paul argues that sonship is legitimately measured by faith. If we have faith like Abram, then we are children of righteousness. Most people assume that children are like their parents by default. The danger is assuming the evil and righteousness is somehow hereditary. God shuts down that theory in Ezekiel 18. Instead, God offers a new train of thought in the NT that suggests that action is not determined by sonship, but sonship by action. Jesus was the perfect mediator of both sets of thought because he was the blood son of promise, and also faithful in everything to the end.[23] His merit permits us, as flawed individuals, to have a hope of adoption if we would act like God’s children.[24]

The rights that we inherit are not the birthright, however we receive much more than we could ever hope or ask for. Jesus was given authority over life; we are offered the promise of life.[25] Jesus reigns at the throne of God; we can reign with him.[26] All glory is given to the son; we can bask in his glory, not our own.[27] Jesus received the Holy Spirit while on earth; we may partake of his Spirit also.[28] Paul stated it best in Galatians when he said that Jesus paved the way for us to be legitimate mature sons:

“Now that Faith has come we are no longer under a tutor, for you are all sons of God through Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither jew nor greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise. Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we, while we were children were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law, so that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His son into our hearts crying ‘Abba Father.’ Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”[29]

This adoption has stipulations attached. First of all, this adoption depends on being baptized into Christ. Second is putting on Christ, which has to do with our manner of living. Thirdly, we must detach ourselves from the things that enslave us, whether it be the Law or things of the world. Fourthly, Paul goes on to say in further verses that we must no go back to the elemental ways of the world and be enslaved again.[30] Sons are free, not slaves. Although we are bondservants of God and “slaves” of righteousness, we do so by choice. To be slaves of our own desires robs us of those righteous decisions.[31]

Sonship is both a theological and a practical aspect of Christianity. Jesus’ Sonship is necessary for His identity as Messiah and His identity as Savior. Our sonship is necessary to please God and to be saved. Let us, then, act like sons of God and imitate His perfect son and our Brother: Jesus.[32]

_____________________________________________________

[1] Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; Romans 8:14; 9:26; Galatians 3:26; 1 John 3:1
[2] Malachi 1:6; Jeremiah 3:4; 31:9; Exodus 4:22
[3] John 5:18, 10:33
[4] Genesis 27:34-36
[5] Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:6
[6] Galatians 4:4-5; Hebrews 2:14-18
[7] Genesis 27:19; 48:18; Exodus 13:1 (22:29); Colossians 1:15
[8] 1 Chronicles 5:1-2
[9] Genesis 21:10-13 – Ishmael was not treated as firstborn, but Isaac was. Exodus 4:22 – the people of Israel were called God’s firstborn, even though they were not the “first” to be his servants. Numbers 3:12-13 – The Levites (not the firstborn tribe) stood in the place of the Firstborn of all of Israel. Colossians 1:18 – Jesus was not the first to be raised from the dead.
[10] John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17 – Isaac is called only begotten even though Ishmael was born first, and Abraham and many sons afterward.
[11] Genesis 25:5-6
[12] Genesis 25:33; 27:35
[13] Genesis 49: 3-4; 1 Chronicles 5:1-2
[14] Genesis 48:14
[15] Genesis 27:29
[16] Colossians 1:15
[17] Hebrews 2:14-18
[18] Hebrews 12:7-9
[19] Genesis 16:1-2; 30:1-24
[20] Genesis 15:2-3
[21] Ibid
[22] Romans 4:1-17; Galatians 3:7-9
[23] John 8:39; Hebrews 2:17; 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; 2 Timothy 2:13; 1 Peter 4:19
[24] Romans 5:17-19
[25] John 3:35; 1 John 5:11-12
[26] Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32; Acts 2:30-33; Hebrews 8:1; 12:2; 2 Timothy 2:12; (1 Corinthians 15:25-28)
[27] Matthew 16:27; 25:31; John 11:4; 2 Peter 1:17 – 1 Peter 4:13-14; Romans 5:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18
[28] Matthew 3:16; John 3:34; 7:39
[29] Galatians 3:25-4:7 – Bolded words focus on sonship. Italicized words are stipulations of sonship.
[30] Galatians 4:9-10
[31] Titus 1:15-16
[32] 1 John 3:1-12

Although there are core values of children that extend to all cultures, the idea of ‘sonship’ is a cultural issue that changes over time. By ‘sonship’ we mean one person being the child of another. Responsibilities and privileges of sons and daughters today include inheriting the family business, receiving property, or simply passing on the last name. The biblical view of sonship carries its own connotations. We can’t assume that sonship has always meant the same as it does today. Our experiences are only going to lightly impact the implications about another culture or literary frame. The Bible presents a unique culture within itself. While its events took place within real time and society, its themes and motif’s can be found by studying its own text. It claims self sufficiency and perfection.[1] Although cultural studies will impact our understanding of scripture, we should look most to the themes which it presents for itself.

I would like to suggest that the biblical usage of sonship carries with it two primary meanings: the identity of the predecessor, and the inheritance of all rights and privileges.[2] It begins with God’s creation of Man in His own image. With this blessing he gave man the responsibility to rule over the earth.[3] When Seth was born to Adam it says he was born in Adam’s image.[4] This pattern is set for the rest of mankind. We too follow in Adam’s image as we continue the problem of Sin and evil.[5] We, as sons of Adam (mankind), receive the responsibilities of dealing with the things of this earth.[6] We retain his identity and inheritance. For another example, God promised that Abram’s seed would come forth “from his own being,” and thereby inherit all that God had promise to Abram.[7] Due to this kind of thinking the Pharisees attempted to inherit righteousness by calling themselves sons of Abraham.[8] The “Children of Israel” took the same mode of thought when they relied on their sonship to save them from Justice.[9] Both sets of people shared the same problem. The Sonship did entitle them to the same rights and identity as their predecessors, but the rights and identity included the Curses as well as the Blessings.[10] Both Abram and Jacob were chastised for their lack of faith,[11] as their children were. The choices that Adam, Abram, and Israel made still effected their destiny.

The expectation for the Messiah was that he would be the “son of David.”[12] The expected implication was that the Messiah would inherit the throne, kingdom, and all the authority that David had.[13] God’s promise to David was like His promise to Abram in that this child of promise would come forth “from his own being.”[14] The Jews highly valued this blood relation and understood (in part) the responsibility it gave. The next in line to the throne always has the responsibility and rights of the king. The son of David would be king, but also a priest. On a more religious side, the priests, specifically the High Priest line, inherited the same authority and identity as their forefathers to serve the Temple.[15] No one else had that authority. That’s what makes Jesus’ priesthood to the order of Melchizedeck (who had no heritage) so different.[16]

What impact does this discussion have on the world of Christian apologetics? The significance lies in calling Jesus the “Son of God.”[17] By referring to Jesus as the Son of God, the NT authors are implying more than just a high status, they are calling Jesus the living identity of God Himself, with all rights and authority transferred.[18] The authority and power which God the Father has is inherited by Jesus Christ the Son. Jesus’ sonship displays His divinity. Jesus was divine before taking the role of son, but choose the relationship specifically to show that the Word can exist parallel to God and not loose or rob any status. By what scriptures can we make this argument? The Jews made this argument themselves in John 10:36. By Jesus referring to God as his Father in an exclusive way the Jews made the connection to identity. They were upset because Jesus was making himself equal with God. And by their worldview, one cannot be equal with God and not be God. Their lessons in sonship had failed them. In addition to identity, the authority also transfers as we see Jesus teaching with authority, unlike the scribes: “You have heard it said [God’s own Law quoted]… but I say to you”.[19] Jesus used His relationship to His Father to uphold His divine status. If this was a misunderstanding on part of the Jews then Jesus, as a responsible upholder of the truth, should have explained how His sonship did not give Him divine status and authority. Yet since John records this event the way that he does, he is using this very argument as an apologetic for Jesus’ deity.

Further scriptures include Matthew’s account of the angelic promise to Joseph.[20] When the angel was telling Joseph what to name the child he said He would be called “Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” The name Jesus means, “Yahweh will save.” Yet in the first statement Jesus is the antecedent for both the one doing the saving and the owner of the people. And the scripture referenced by the angel calls the son Immanuel: “God with us.” Zechariah 2 and 3 refer to Yahweh coming to dwell with his people. Just afterward, the high priest Joshua (the same name as Jesus) is set up as a forerunner to the one who would come from David’s branch (a connotation to direct descendent). Thus even God’s presence is tied to the seed of David. Just as much as the Jews expected the physical son of David to be the messiah, so God also expected His own person to fulfill this role. Isaiah 9 speaks of a child who, when born, would rule God’s people forever. This should vividly recall God’s promise to David that his seed would reign forever. In Isaiah one of the names of the child is “Mighty God, Eternal Father.”[21] Once more God himself is tied to the sonship promise to David.

If the Sonship of God implies deity as the NT claims, then we must recognize the metaphoric nature God’s relationship. God has chosen the analogy of father and son to describe His position with Himself as it concerns Jesus. He also uses that analogy to describe His relationship with us and our relationship to one another. Sonship is important to the theology of both the Jew and the Christian. We must see God’s word fulfilled as prophesied. God doesn’t always do things in the expected way, but He has made it clear that His son caries His own identity, authority, and power. Because of this, the phrase “Son of God” to the Jews, and hopefully to us, should cause respect for the person of Jesus and His authority over our lives.

---

 

[1] 2 Timothy 3:15-17 – the scriptures are fully adequate for salvation and for the knowledge Christians need. John 5:39 – Jesus completes scripture, stressing that the scriptures themselves only point to true life. John 10:35 – the scripture cannot be broken.
[2] Hebrews 7:9-10
[3] Genesis 1:27-30 – stresses the transferred authority. Luke 3:38; Genesis 5:1-3 – names Adam as “son of God” in the same way Seth was son of Adam.
[4] Genesis 5:3
[5] Romans 5:12, 15, 17, 19
[6] Psalm 8:4-6; Hebrews 2:6-8 – The psalm speaks of Mankind, the Hebrew writer applies to Jesus.
[7] Genesis 15:4
[8] Matthew 3:7-9; John 8:39, 53, 56
[9] Amos 3:1-2; Malachi 1:6
[10] Luke 1:73-75 – opportunity to serve. Isaiah 58:13-14 – the heritage of Jacob is dependent on keeping the law.
[11] Genesis 12:18; 20:9; 31:26 – the chastising comes from another man who felt wronged. Ultimately it can be seen that things were done because of a lack of Faith. The last example Jacob obeys God but does so in a fearful manor.
[12] 2 Samuel 7:12-17; Isaiah 11:1;10  Matthew 12:23
[13] Acts 2:25-31
[14] Compare Genesis 15:4 to 2 Samuel 7:12
[15] Exodus 27:21
[16] Hebrews 7:3, 12-14
[17] Examples: Matthew 8:29; 16:16; John 1:34, 49; 19:7; 20:31; Romans 1:4; 2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 John 3:8-9; 4:15
[18] Matthew 26:63-65; Hebrews 1:8; 4:14; 1 John 5:9-12
[19] Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43; 7:28. See also Matthew 9:6; John 17:1-2; Ephesians 1:21-23; Colossians 1:13-18; 2:10; Jude 1:25
[20] Matthew 1:21-23
[21] Isaiah 9:6