Hello everyone,
can any greek scholar tell me if Jesus is called THE Son of God or A Son of God in the NT?
Thank you and God bless you all
Dani
My resources are at the office, but I’m pretty sure Jesus is called {ho huios} “the Son” (with a direct article) sometimes.
More to the point, Biblical Greek doesn’t have the English version of “a/an”, so the lack of a direct article in front of a word doesn’t mean much either way. “The” means “the” (and even that can be pushed too far because sometimes “the” is used in front of proper names and in a few other ways), but {nothing} can mean either “the” or “a/an”.
That also goes for a lack of a direct article in front of {theos}: its lack doesn’t mean “the” God isn’t being discussed.
The most notorious example of such flexibility is the declaration of the centurion at the death of Jesus, “Surely this man was… something something.” 
As a pagan (presumably) he most probably meant what we would call “a son of a god” in English, but grammatically the words on the page could just as easily mean:
a son of a god
a son of the God
the son of a god
the son of the God
(This is aside from questions about textual transmission of that verse; again my books are at the office and I don’t remember if there are traditions including direct articles for {huios theou} or not.)
Greek articles are used differently than English, so I’m not sure if the distinction you are trying to make is relevant. The use of the article would not rule out the possibilities of the existence of other sons. And, actually, even in English, saying “the son of” doesn’t rule out the possibility of other sons.
If you are trying to work out whether Jesus is the only son of God or one of many sons, it seems like the phrase “the only-begotten Son” might be more relevant? or maybe not. I guess other twists could be put on that.
Sonia
These passages sure sound as if God begat (or generated) One and only One Son.
I think the article in Greek specifies rather than generalizes, just as the definite article does in English.
It is true that the article was used many times before the name “Jesus”. But many people were named “Jesus” (Joshua). Doesn’t the definite article here specify a particular “Jesus”, namely the Saviour of mankind, and not just any “Jesus”? That is, it specifies “The Jesus”, and not just “a Jesus”.
I think a rather pertinent question might also be… what does “THE Son of God” actually mean?
For mine it carries connotations of “this one is chosen i.e., begotten, of God… meaning, called and placed into the most highest of offices. Like the last Adam the first Adam was “the son of God” as per Lk 3:38, and yet in accord with his pure obedience the last Adam was destined and declared to be “the Son of God with power” Rom 1:4 – thus not only being Israel’s Messiah BUT ALSO appointed to be the world’s L[size=77]ORD[/size] Act 2:36].
Pretty sure the definite article is used before other names, too, regardless of how common they are or not. It’s just a stylistic thing, but it does convert titles to being effectively names in other cases (the satan for example, or the god for that matter).
Sonia, if the article doesn’t specify a particular Jesus, Peter, James, and John, then why did Mark include the article? If it serves no function, then why use it?
Davo, I think Jesus being the only-begotten Son of God, implies far more than being chosen and/or destined for a particular office. It means that Jesus was the only true offspring of God, being the exact imprint of God’s essence (Heb 1:3). God begat or generated (not created) Him as His first act. Though mature disciples of Christ are called “sons of God”, they are not Sons in the sense that Jesus was the only-begotten Son of God. In his discussion with Trypho, Justin Martyr illustrated this generation of the Son of God by comparing it to lighting a small fire from a large one. Having been lighted, the small fire is, in a sense, separate from the original larger one, but yet is of the same essence.
Because different languages do things differently. Greek habitually uses the article with proper names, whereas English does not.
Modern Greek still does this:
From foundalis.com/lan/grknouns.htm
Sonia
In short, the argument for Jesus being uniquely the son of God, and what that means (Paidion has slightly but crucially different ideas about that than trinitarians, maybe including the earliest Fathers still working out the implications; and various versions of unitarians are even more different, then Mormons are even more different again) does not depend on the direct article being used before names in Greek.
Again, NT authors will sometimes use the direct article in front of other names (up to and including God) and sometimes not, even in the same text. Jesus’ name is similarly treated. So are references to the title/description “son of god”: sometimes it’s “son of god”, sometimes “son of the god”, sometimes “the son of the god”. (And sometimes “the son of god”, perhaps, but not often if I recall correctly.)
So are references to “holy spirit”, for that matter, although the way the term is used the lack of articles could sometimes refer to a holy spirit of a person or a person’s spirit being given holiness more generally. But other times it’s “the holy spirit”, and a few times “the spirit of-the-holy”. But whether there is a distinct person of divinity being called the Holy Spirit doesn’t depend on the article usage at all.
So would you say that this practice is merely abitrary—that there is no reason for the authors to choose to use the article as opposed from not using it?
It seems hard to believe that the Christians scribes prior to 300 A.D., would use so many abbreviations to save papyrus space as in Papyrus 66, in words such as ΘC θεος]and IU ιησου] (overlined to indicate abbreviation), while throwing in unnecessary articles such as O, TOU, TON, TOIS, TOUS, etc.
It’s a linguistic mystery. The best guess I’ve heard is that using direct articles occasionally in front of proper names helps preserve a lost rhythmical effect sometimes, and other times helps specify the grammar better since the direct article forms are more precise than the suffixes for nouns (and especially for names) generally.
Using direct articles in front of names (or titles) isn’t restricted to NT texts (as Sonia reported); and if it made some kind of important theological difference like the sacred abbreviations then the authors would have made the article usage more consistent which they don’t. One of the commonest things to see in the NT is {theos} given sacred abbreviation in a context that definitely refers to God Most High but sometimes with the direct article and sometimes not.
Jason, you may be right that θεος sometimes refers to God Most High both with and without the definite article.
However, I have been unable to find in the New Testament a single instance of θεος which IS preceded by the article and with no other qualifying modifier, where the reference is CLEARLY to any other than THE GOD, that is, God the Father. If you are aware of any such instances, I would be pleased to learn of them.
Hi Paidion… yes I hear what you’re saying as that is pretty much the standard evangelicalism I grew up with; minus of course the inclusionism.
I think it would be “true” to say we’re all God’s “offspring” Act 17:29]; what set Jesus apart however (apart from his unique high calling) was his determined obedience to fulfil his calling, which he did – which why He was “appointed heir of all things” “and declared to be the Son of God with power”.
As to what “implies” what… this is something I’m exploring apart from the standard fare Christendom has promulgated. I’m coming to understand texts like Heb 1:3 for example as reflecting Jesus’ “he who has seen me has seen the Father” i.e., it is metaphoric language basically stating “***I AM the Father’s mouthpiece… hear me!***" (Mt 17:5; Jn14:24b) etc. In other words, such texts are to be understood less in deific terms as is typically read into them; again IMO.
Thus when Jesus said things like “I and the Father are one” he was NOT making some theological claim, explicit or implicit, as to his own divinity but simply saying… “we’re on the SAME page”, that is, such statements are about shared PURPOSE not shared personage of divine position.
Trivially important (and also somewhat subjective regarding “clearly”, e.g. Thomas’ declaration which has no evidence of use as an exclamation but does have scriptural precedent as use in addressing YHWH directly, or where a grammatic situation would otherwise imply a direct article omitted to fit the grammatic situation), since THE GOD can be spoken of without direct articles and with qualifying modifiers (with or without direct articles) even when the person of the Father is clearly the topic. At most all it does is distinguish a minor preferential habit of usage between the persons of Jesus and the Father, somewhat like the preference for calling Jesus but not the Father Lord even in referential citations to YHWH in the OT.
Besides which, adding qualifiers which fit God Most High cannot possibly count against the object being described in terms of God Most High. 
That shouldn’t be an issue even on your unusual bi-theism, where Jesus is exactly essentially another God Most High except for not being eternally self-existent thus not in fact being exactly essentially another God Most High.
It seems clear to me, that when other modifiers are used, then the reference may to be any god. For example, if current insight is correct “the god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4) is a reference to Satan (although Irenæus adequately explained why it referred to the Almighty God (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter VII.)
In any case a qualifier does qualify. So Thomas’s declaration did not indicate that Jesus was THE God, by “my God”. Second century Christians said similar things, e.g. Justin Martyr affirmed that it is proper to refer to Jesus as “God”. Like Thomas, I could truly say that Jesus is my God. But then Jesus has a God, too! (Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34, Rev 3:12). And Jesus addressed his God as “The only real God” (John 17:3).
No one is suggesting that they do. All I have affirmed is that all cases of θεος with the article which does not have other modifiers refers ONLY to the Most High. Since that includes approximately 200 instances, it seems to indicate that the Most High is normally designated by “o θεος” (“The God”) and hence the article is not thrown in arbitrarily, but denotes the Most High in distinction from all other gods.
I know you insist that I am a bi-theist of some sort. But this I deny. Bi-theism is a belief in two supreme Gods (which are equal in every way). This I do not believe. Jesus said, “The Father is greater than I”. The Father and the Son are equal in only one respect. They are equally divine.
Jesus addressed his Father as “the only real God” (John 17:3). Jesus was always second in position to the Father, and while on earth always submitted to the will of the Father. He is called “God” in the same sense that you and I are both called “man”. You and I are both of human essence; Jesus and his Father are both of divine essence (though while Jesus was on earth He divested Himself of his divine attributes. You and I are equally human. Jesus and his Father are equally divine. When you beget a child, that child is human as you are. God begat only one Son. That Son is divine as He, the Father, is.
Duh. But when modifiers are used which apply to the God, then that reduces by proportion the possibility that the reference may be to just any old god out there.
If Thomas starts addressing Jesus as {ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou}, how in the world is the {mou} “of me” supposed to seriously count as a qualifier that Thomas doesn’t think he’s using a phrase from the Psalms, originally applying to God Most High (in contexts where only God Most High should be worshiped as one’s lord and god), to call Jesus God Most High?? (Not to call Jesus the Father, but still calling Jesus GMH.)
{mou}, of all things, is supposed to count as a qualifier against {ho theos} referring to God Most High?! That is so backward I don’t even know what else to say about it. Theories that Thomas was praying to the Father (or even casually interjecting an oath to the Father in shock) make more sense than that. It’s like saying the usage of {ho theos} in a grammatic form other than the nominative (like {ton theon} or {tou theou}) opens up the possibility that God Most High isn’t being talked about. e.g. {tou theou} is genitive and implies an English “of” and “of” is a modifier so a modifier is being used there.
If you argue that you can call something less than {ho theos} “the God” so long as you use any qualifier at all like “my”, then you might as well argue that you (and the NT authors and persons) can call something less than “the God” {ho theos} without any qualifier at all. There is only the most trivial and meaningless of steps between the two positions.
It’s “the only true God”, which by the way is also using {ho theos} with a qualifier. He also calls the Father “the God of me” {theon mou} with exactly the same “my” and with no direct article at all. Ditto Matthew’s translation of the Aramaic into Greek at Matt 27:46, {thee mou thee mou}; Mark’s translation provides the direct article {ho theos mou ho theos mou}. Rev is {tou theou mou} which is nothing less or other than the same thing Thomas says to and about Jesus except in genitive form “of the-god of-me”. Whereas the Hebraist presents the Father calling the Son {ho theos} with no other qualifiers at all.
This is all entirely consonant with trinitarian theism (or only binitarian if you prefer), so long as the Son is subordinate personally to the Father: one person of God Most High would be rebelling not to acknowledge that another person of God Most High is the only true God (since there aren’t two true Gods), and the self-begotten Person would be rebelling not to loyally acknowledge the self-begetting Person as {theon mou} (with or without a direct article in a Greek translation). But it makes a hash out of the notion of leaning strongly on {ho theos} to refer only to the Father in some way that grammatically distinguishes Jesus not also being God Most High. Finer and finer picky qualifiers to imply an ontological distinction by grammatic usage, shade into mere inconsequentiality where not outright into rebuttal by counterexamples.
I realize that such things have to be tried on the ground of metaphysical rejection of any kind of ortho-trin (e.g. appealing to the Father being the God of the Son, or the Son acknowledging the Father as the true God), but then the underlying problem is metaphysics. And I (of all people) am not trying to make light of such problems, but those problems don’t prevent this particular grammatic-exegetical argument from being anything other than unimportantly weak at best.
I only say that because you have also in the past (including the very recent past) vocally insisted on Jesus being essentially (and also uniquely) the same kind of thing the Father is, not only over-against those unitarians who regard Jesus as being only an empowered man but also over-against those unitarians who (like Arius) regarded Jesus as the incarnation of the highest possible super-angel but essentially different from God.
You’re doing it right now! – “They are equally divine. Jesus and His Father are both of divine essence. The Son is divine as He, the Father, is.” No, if the Son is not also the self-existent ground of all reality, if the Son is not also essentially God Most High, then those persons are not equally divine. Or they are equally divine by being both creatures of a subordinate reality, though the only two such creatures in existence, with the Father being stronger and also the creature who created the Son. Which is mere polytheism, where “divinity” is only another type of creature like “humanity”, and you aren’t talking about the real foundation of all reality yet.
Except I actually believe that in regard to the one and only ground of all existence: the self-begetting, self-begotten (and self-giving) God. What the one and only uniquely self-existent ground of all existence “begets” is the one and only uniquely self-existent ground of all existence. Not two self-existent grounds, and not a creature that isn’t the one and only self-existent ground.
Granted we’re using a metaphor to talk about something sui generis and uniquely different from any other real thing, but if you don’t actually mean to be talking about the single ground of all existence then we aren’t even remotely on the same theology talking about God the Father at all; and if you do mean to be talking about the single ground of all existence then you would be better off to drop that type of appeal to begetting language.
(The source you seem to be paraphrasing for that application is C. S. Lewis – a dog begets a dog, a man begets a man but creates a chair, etc. – and he definitely didn’t mean that the Son when being begotten-instead-of-created was something less than the one and only God Most High. Nor did his source I expect, if he picked that up from someone earlier, possibly Aquinas or Augustine or Athanasius in the Arian disputes.)
There are very important contextual issues in Heb 1 which explain why “deific terms” are being “read into” Heb 1:3. The Hebraist declares that the Son is as much better than any angels as his name. This name, according to Heb 1:8 (in reference to Psalm 45:6-7) is {ho theos} in Greek – direct article, clearly referring to the Son, no extra descriptions, stable textual transmission – the same as the name of God Who anoints the one known as “Elohim” in that Psalm, and Whom the Hebraist says is calling the Son {ho theos}. And in 1:10 (in direct reference to Psalm 102:25-26) the Hebraist says the Son’s maximal name is YHWH, and specifically the Creator YHWH Who is the active foundation of the Earth and the heavens, which are the work of His hands. The Hebraist in 1:13 treats the ADNY of Psalm 110:1 as meaning more than any merely human lord, too: it is Adonai Whose name is above that of the angels. (Although the Hebraist certainly shows later that he knows Christ is supposed to be a human man.) For this reason the Father, when He leads the Son into the inhabitations, expects the angels of God to worship the Son. (1:6 – combining two places in the OT where worship of YHWH is strictly exhorted, whether by Israel (Deut 32:43) or by the idolatrous “gods” themselves (Ps 97:7).) The Hebraist also treats the Father as declaring that the throne of the Son continues into the eons, a claim only ever made of YHWH in the OT, leaving aside Psalm 45 as debatable).
Admittedly, in Psalm 45 the Psalmist is in view as the speaker not the Father. But the point is that the Hebraist believes and is teaching that God the Father inspired the Psalmist to speak this way of someone whom the Hebraist considers to be the Son, Christ Jesus. (The statement at 1:7, though more obscurely phrased, doesn’t make much sense unless the Hebraist is at least contrasting the angels created by God to the Son Who is the immortal and eternal creator {ho theos}; which would also imply the Son is the YHWH from Psalm 104:4 Who creates the angels and ministers as wind and fire.)
The Hebraist is certainly distinguishing personally between the Son and the Father (and certainly treats the Son as a human man next in chapter 2), but he’s also making strong identification claims for the Son to be the one and only creator, not created, {ho theos} YHWH ADNY Most High – a ‘sonship’ of a unique fashion incomparable to any creation of God, however much they may also be legitimately called sons.
In short, the Hebraist himself is “reading” “deific terms” “into” his description of the Son as the {charactêr} or exact imprint of the Father. Trinitarians are only following suit.
Jesus is saying (and has been saying earlier than that final Dedication Feast of His ministry) a lot more than that, and the Jews gathering around Him know what He has been saying before (e.g. “before Abraham was, I AM”). But merely in this one scene (from GosJohn 10:22-39):
1.) Only God Most High can give eonian life, which Jesus also claims to do.
2.) Jesus puts Himself on par with the Father out of Whose hand no one can snatch those whom Jesus gives eonian life. (“No one shall snatch them out of my hand… no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”)
He says those two things right before saying “The Father and I are one”.
3.) When Jesus quotes back the Psalm about “I have said that you are gods”, He’s doing a typical rabbinic rebuke technique where a master criticizes a disciple (and these had previously tried to stand up to other Pharisees as His disciples!) by quoting a verse of scripture testing to see if the disciple will remember the context and so understand the implicit critique. If the disciple does, then great he has that going for him at least; if he doesn’t, he’s that much more dishonored. In this case Jesus is implicitly putting Himself in the place of YHWH ADNY Elohim standing up in the middle of His sanctuary judging against those who are standing in judgment against Him – the rebuke is “I have said that ye are gods but ye shall die like mortal men!” Jesus quotes the first part putting His accusers in tacitly in the role of those who dare to stand in judgment of God. He isn’t claiming to be elohim on the ontological level of the plural elohim standing in judgment against him; He’s claiming to be the single Elohim against whom the elohim are rebelling, for which they shall die like mortal men.
They get the point and keep on trying to seize Him, so He departs.
Part of the problem of sussing out His implications after the fact, is that even though He presses different groups of people farther and farther, He usually comes up short of saying something that would trigger an attack for blasphemy and put all the religious leaders decidedly against Him. He presses farther against the Pharisees because He expects them to be able to get it – it’s precisely the Pharisees who stood up for Him against the others (possibly in a split between the Shammate and Hillel factions), to whom He says (in critique!) that before Abraham was He Is, for example. And even after this scene at the Feast of Dedications, after Jesus has been gone for a few months, many of the chief priests actually are still trying (in their own way) to follow Him, or so says John’s account. (Thus helping explain why Caiaphas can’t simply railroad Him in a rigged trial, even in a desperate last-minute attempt to stop what they fear to be a rebel uprising on Passover.)
That’s a great strategy for making sure He can keep going (without getting too flashy in escapes) up to the time to actually die, but it leaves us after the fact with puzzles and riddles to work with. But His chief enemies do get what He’s implying (and sometimes saying a little too dangerously straight out). “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
(Notice by the way that in the translation to Greek John uses {theon} without a direct article; but obviously the Jews aren’t upset about Jesus making Himself out to be ‘a god’ in some fashion that would be acceptable religiously! – They’re upset because Jesus is making Himself out to be, as we might say, the God, even though they aren’t using a “the” in the translation. His Father is God, their hands are the same hand, Jesus personally provides what only God can provide, “I and the Father are one”.)