The Son of God : Act I
The Son of God : Act III

The Son of God : Act II

...continued from The Son of God : Act I

We are told that, in the beginning, man was created in the "image of God." (Genesis 1:26-28)

Despite Adam and Eve's disobedience, beings created in the "image of God" did not, could not, lose that status. God is still regarded as the father of all:

"You are the children of YHWH your God" (Deuteronomy 14:1)
"Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, And hast forgotten God that gave thee birth." (Deuteronomy 32:18)
"I will be to him a Father and he shall be my son"- of Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14, Hebrews 1:5)

Even though Israelite thought regards God as the father of all by creation (Luke 3:38), it does not presume that all creatures are his "children."

It was left to Jesus to draw a line in the sand:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof." (John 8:44)

Those who wish to stand on Jesus' side of the line can do so by emulating his standard of righteousness. They also will then become children of God:

"...blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God." (Luke 6:35, Matthew 5:9)
"As many as are led by the spirit, these are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14)
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12)

Those who do not wish to stand in this spiritual relationship with God are perfectly free to do so - that is their concern.

It is obvious that the term 'son of God' implies no particular manner of being born, or of divinity. John 10:34-36 clearly explains the usage of the terms 'god' and 'son of God' as applied to Jesus. These verses may be taken to exemplify what theologians have failed to grasp - that 'sonship' of God is not restricted to Jesus and that it is of a purely ethical and spiritual nature:

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (Psalm 82:6)
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, say he of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Surely there can be no greater authority to turn to than Jesus himself! On his testimony there were a number of 'gods', among whom were: Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:9), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2:7), Shemaiah, Elijah, and Moses (1 Kings 12:22, 17:24, 8:53). This differed from the pagan concept in that the men themselves had no claim to divinity.

The crucial difference between Jesus and other 'sons' was that Jesus was 'anointed' with plenipotentiary powers to be God's representative on earth and to speak and act in the name of the Father.

Jesus castigated the religious leaders of his time for not understanding their own scriptures. It could be argued that the Christian churches have a more serious case to answer. They ostensibly preach Jesus of Nazareth while, at the same time, through their doctrine, they misrepresent him and actually further the viewpoint of those who crucified him. The personality cult built up around the person of 'Jesus Christ' effectively destroys the central figure with far greater definition than the crucifixion itself accomplished.


The comments to this entry are closed.