Meaning of the Son of God: Judaism DIR

[fallingblood]

Just to point out, this is the Judaism DIR. I just point that out as I know it is easy to glance over such a thing; I know I have.

My question revolves around the title Son of God, or someone being called a/the son of God. I just want to know what the Jewish perspective is when someone is called a/the son of God? What does it mean to you?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

At the moment, it means you're likely trolling the DIR

 

[fallingblood]

At the moment, it means you're likely trolling the DIR

How so? I'm actually quite curious as to the meaning that Jews place on it.

I know how Christians think about the idea, and I find it to be not very helpful when trying to understand what was being talked about when Jesus is called such.

I have a basic understanding of the Jewish view, but I figure it best to get the information from Jews, who I can have a discussion with in order to get a complete understanding of what it means.

 

[Levite]

Just to point out, this is the Judaism DIR. I just point that out as I know it is easy to glance over such a thing; I know I have.

My question revolves around the title Son of God, or someone being called a/the son of God. I just want to know what the Jewish perspective is when someone is called a/the son of God? What does it mean to you?

In my experience, it's Christian language, and nothing else. And as you know, we reject entirely the idea that someone could be the reproductive son of God in the sense that Christians use that term to describe Jesus. God does not reproduce by impregnating human beings. To the extent that we can say that God reproduces, He does so by creating life. Which includes Jesus, as much as and no more than it does any other human being. Jesus was a son of God precisely to the degree that every man is a son of God, and every woman a daughter of God.

So to my mind, to refer to anyone as the son of God is at best more or less meaningless, as it applies to everyone equally; and at worst it is simply erroneous. It represents an effort to deify a human being, which is anathema in Jewish thought, and IMO, for good reason. God is God; human beings are human beings; and in an ultimate, theological sense, never the twain shall meet.

I also find it unfortunately ironic to hear that title applied to Jesus, because from what I can figure out about the man, he might have been presumptuous enough to claim he was the messiah (after all, just about every third or fourth guy around in ancient Israel was claiming to be the messiah, so why should he be different?) but I will never believe he personally claimed to be the literal son of God. Such a concept would have been utterly foreign to him.

 

[fallingblood]

Thank you for the answer. As a follow up. What would you consider the meaning of Psalms 2:7 where it calls the author that he is the son of God, or that God is his father.

Now, I know it doesn't refer to an actual physical son of God, but does it have any special connotation? Is the person special at all?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

My first assessment was accurate: You're trolling the DIR.

 

[Zardoz]

OK, so if I understand your question, you're curious about what the term means to Jews?
As you can see, modern Jews have abandoned this term because it's meaning has become linked to another faith, and a different culture entirely.
What would be most interesting is what the term would have meant to Jews before the 1st century CE. Certainly not a term of physical parentage.

 

[Levite]

Thank you for the answer. As a follow up. What would you consider the meaning of Psalms 2:7 where it calls the author that he is the son of God, or that God is his father.

Now, I know it doesn't refer to an actual physical son of God, but does it have any special connotation? Is the person special at all?

Psalms are poetry. They're not supposed to be read as prophetic narrative, or even at all literally. They are texts of feelings, of introspection, of spiritual and emotional imagination, of imagery and metaphor and idiom and so forth.

Psalm 2 is a "Davidic" psalm, written in the first person, using language suggestive of the psalmist narrator being a king, and describing the fears of such a one surrounded by enemies. The second half of the psalm, in which the psalmist feels emboldened by his relationship with God he shows us how comforted he feels by that closeness. But the imagery he uses to describe it, in which it is as though God has claimed him like a parent claims a child, is just that: imagery. It's not that anyone-- the psalmist or otherwise-- is literally a son or daughter of God, but that when, in the course of confronting his enemies and fears, the psalmist feels as though he were so protected by God, it's as though God was his parent, and finds new courage and hope.

By the same token, in any kind of religiously-inspired poem, from any religious tradition, imagery is used that is not supposed to symbolize anything approaching literality. For example, if we read John Donne's holy sonnet XIV, the poet compares himself to a beseiged town held by enemy forces, and urges God to overthrow the occupier of the town and "ravish" him (the poet). And we understand that this is imagery, representative of Donne's feelings, and his yearning for God: we do not suppose either that Donne was literally a town, nor that he desired God to rape or seduce him.

The only special connotation that this psalm might have, as far as I know, is that, like some others, it is held by the tradition to be a psalm that speaks well to those facing troubles in their lives, and is said to have virtue to comfort those in danger or in grievous need.

 

[Flankerl]

not yet now this is the Judaism DIR. Please read the rules.

 

[fallingblood]

My first assessment was accurate: You're trolling the DIR.

Really, I think you're the only one trolling the DIR. Instead of answering the question, you just waste my time. If you can't muster anything worthwhile, please just leave this thread.

I have an honest question that I want to have a better understanding about. I see Jesus being Jewish, and his early followers to be Jewish, so I want to know why such a designation was given to a Jewish person. It has nothing to do with trolling. I'm using the DIR for what it was created for.

 

[fallingblood]

Psalms are poetry. They're not supposed to be read as prophetic narrative, or even at all literally. They are texts of feelings, of introspection, of spiritual and emotional imagination, of imagery and metaphor and idiom and so forth.

Psalm 2 is a "Davidic" psalm, written in the first person, using language suggestive of the psalmist narrator being a king, and describing the fears of such a one surrounded by enemies. The second half of the psalm, in which the psalmist feels emboldened by his relationship with God he shows us how comforted he feels by that closeness. But the imagery he uses to describe it, in which it is as though God has claimed him like a parent claims a child, is just that: imagery. It's not that anyone-- the psalmist or otherwise-- is literally a son or daughter of God, but that when, in the course of confronting his enemies and fears, the psalmist feels as though he were so protected by God, it's as though God was his parent, and finds new courage and hope.

By the same token, in any kind of religiously-inspired poem, from any religious tradition, imagery is used that is not supposed to symbolize anything approaching literality. For example, if we read John Donne's holy sonnet XIV, the poet compares himself to a beseiged town held by enemy forces, and urges God to overthrow the occupier of the town and "ravish" him (the poet). And we understand that this is imagery, representative of Donne's feelings, and his yearning for God: we do not suppose either that Donne was literally a town, nor that he desired God to rape or seduce him.

The only special connotation that this psalm might have, as far as I know, is that, like some others, it is held by the tradition to be a psalm that speaks well to those facing troubles in their lives, and is said to have virtue to comfort those in danger or in grievous need.

Thank you for the answer. As always, I enjoy hearing what you have to say.

Just one more follow up question. Why do you think Jesus would have been given such a title or designation? With him being a Jew, and his earliest followers being Jews, do you think it could have some type of different meaning in the first century? Or do you think it was probably a later addition created by later gentile converts?

Really, I'm just curious as to why such a title would be given to Jesus. And since he was a Jew, I figured a Jewish perspective is probably the best.

 

[Flankerl]

If you try to enlarge your audience and your audience believes in human sacrifices, gods having children with humans, etc. you have to make some changes in your PR department.

Its just the way it works.

 

[Levite]

Thank you for the answer. As always, I enjoy hearing what you have to say.

Just one more follow up question. Why do you think Jesus would have been given such a title or designation? With him being a Jew, and his earliest followers being Jews, do you think it could have some type of different meaning in the first century? Or do you think it was probably a later addition created by later gentile converts?

Really, I'm just curious as to why such a title would be given to Jesus. And since he was a Jew, I figured a Jewish perspective is probably the best.

What Flankerl said makes a lot of sense.

Obviously, not having documentation assembled during Jesus' lifetime, we cannot know if a term like ben-ha'elohim was ever actually used by him, or in reference to him.

My personal suspicion is that it was not. Although I freely confess I have no evidence to support this hypothesis (since no evidence exists one way or the other), my suspicion is that the "son of God" business was something added later, either by early Jewish Christians who, like Flankerl implies, were just trying to expand the flock, and embellished the story for their benefit; or by non-Jewish or apostatic Christians slightly later, who were syncretizing non-Jewish ideas into Jewish Christianity to make it into the foundation of what it became, and tried to use Tanakhic language that they thought would resonate well with their audience in its new context.

I have this suspicion simply because the idea of literalizing the idea of a person being a son of God in that way was so foreign to Judaism at that time. That does not appear to have been how any of the known groups in Judaism were reading that phrase, and it would have been manifestly in opposition to Pharisaic, Sadduceeic, or even Essene theology. And since Jesus seems to have garnered the core of his following from Pharisaic Jews (as you know, I am quite convinced that he himself was a renegade Pharisee), claiming to be the literal son of God (not to mention God embodied as a man), would have been deeply counterproductive: claims like that would not have gotten him support from his target audience, and if anything would likely have produced the reverse.

What I find much more likely is the use of "son of man," that the synoptic gospels frequently apply to Jesus. This term, ben-adam, is a common usage in the books of the major prophets, especially Ezekiel, for the prophet himself. It is frequently depicted as a common form of address used by God toward the prophet, which was both a sign of humility, a reminder about the supreme potency of God, and a subtle implication about the status of the prophet as the one picked from all mortal people to deliver God's message. Now, if I were a renegade Pharisee, trying to accrue a following of disciples willing to aid my claim to the messianic mantle, adopting the language of major prophet in reference to myself would be right there at the top of my list of things to do.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Waitasec, are you Jewish?

 

[waitasec]

Waitasec, are you Jewish?

no. but my brother married an awesome jewish girl and the wedding was absolutely fantastically fun!!!

the jewish tradition interests me because of the religious background i grew up with... that, and now i'm invited to share hanukkah with the extended family

 

[Levite]

In Jewish literature, the leaders of the people, kings and princes were called "sons of God" based on the view of the king as the lieutenant of God.

That inference is subject to debate, which, outside the DIR, I would be glad to engage in.

However, the Messias, the Chosen One, was uniquely called the Son of God, as in Psalm 2, 7: The "Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee"

Bearing in mind, of course, that not only is a specifically messianic meaning to that text a Christian interpretation, but of course, the application of messianic texts in the Hebrew Bible to Jesus represents Christian eisegetic retrojection of their theology backward into pre-Christian Jewish text.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Which violates the DIR

Non-Jews, do NOT answer another question about Jewish religion here. Ever. You spread misconceptions and project beliefs alien to the faith.

 

[David_2010]

I'm not sure if this is accurate, but, I have read that, in ancient Israel, around that time, the term "Son of God" was a term applied to individuals of great spirituality, and didn't necessarily refer to a literal, biological, son of God.

 

[punkdbass]

I am not 100% sure how Judaism views the term "son of God," but it is of my personal belief that to be a son of God is to try to walk with God, to follow his teachings and try to understand his truth. So in my belief the term "son of God" could be applied to many, many people, not just Jesus.

Also, I'd like to give the OP a few verses from the Hebrew Bible to think about that might help answer the original question.

Exodus 4:22 “Thus says the lord, Israel is my first born son. I have said to you, “Let my son go, that he may worship Me,”

1 Chronicles22:9-11 “But you shall have a son who will be a man at rest, for I will give him rest from all his enemies on all sides; Solomon will be his name and I shall confer peace and quiet on Israel in his time. He will build a house for my name; he shall be a son to me and I to him a father, and I will establish his throne of kingship over Israel forever.”

Here we are told that the entire nation of Israel was a "son of God," and that Solomon was also a son of God. Perhaps we all are? I think a lot of Christians hold to much importance to this title when they apply it to Jesus, that they fail to realize that anyone who worships God is a son of God -- at least thats my opinion. Hope that helped.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I understand that this is the Jewish DIR.
But as I agree with what the Jewish members are saying about Jesus and the Son of God; I would add that Not all Christians have or do believe Jesus was the Son of God, Those with a Unitarian outlook would see it as a very suspect concept, in much the same way that a Jew might.

If this post offends in any way please ask to have it removed.