,:'1r

irl
'l Son ofGod Soa ofGod

proach," Rrüg1on 14 (1984) 67-75; idem, "Paul's Sense
of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Communi-
ty Formation in Corinü," N?S 32 (1986) 22546; idem,
'iThe Communal Dimension of Earliest Christianity:A
Critical Survey of the tield," /S
43 (1992) 399-427;
Countryman , Dül, Cnud and Ser (Philadelphia:
W üe
L.
Fomes, 1988); J. H. Elliott, A Horu fu tht Hunelas
(Philadetphia: Fomess, l98l); f,. S. Fiorenza, In Mm-
ory of Hr (New York: Crossroad, 1983); J. G. Gager'
Kingdnm and Communitl: Tfu Soaal lVotld of Early Clnis'
tiaziry (Englewood Clifis, {:
Prentice-Hall, 1975);
S. R Garrett, "sociology of Early Christian\ty"' ABD
VI.89-99; R F. Hoch ?fu Social Conbxt of Ponl)s Min'
cate Jesus' unique status and intimate relationship
with God,* But the contexts ofüese references supply
several additional and more partjcular nuances ro the
term. Insome passages Jesus is presented as Cod's
regally enthroned Son, drawing upon OT traditions of
Davidic king as "Son" of God (e.9., Ps 2:6-?; s¿¿
Exaltation and EnthronemenQ. In others Paul seems
to allude to the offering of Isaac (Gen 22) to represent
Jesus' death as the supreme act o[ redemptive love
(e.g., Rom 8:32). Also Paul presents God's Son as the
one sent forth to provide the standing wiü God for
which the Torah was incapable. And Paul also por-
üaysJesus' diüne sonship as the pattem for, and basis
In fact the designation "son of god' was not common
i¡ Greco-Roman paganism and seems to have been
used as a tide only by Roman emperors (Lattn d,üti
flita rendered in Greek as tfuou huios). The deities of
the so-called "mystery cults," for example, to which
¡|re early history-of-religions school attached such im-
poÍance, were not referred to as "son of god." Any
influence of Roman emperor devotion upon early
christology was probably much later thm Paul and
likely involved Chrisúan recoil from what was re-
garded as blásphemous rather than as something to
be appropriated (e.g., Cuss). Nock's judgrnent con-
ceming the Pauline use of "Son of God" still holds,
Since first notices of its existence in 1972, the Qumran
document 4Q246 has received a great deal of atten-
tion because it ¡efers to a mler who will be acclaimed
with the tides "son of God" and "son of the Most
High," the same tides given toJesus in Luke 1:32-35
(see, e.9., Fiumye¡ 9&94). Owing to üe fragmentary
nature of the document, it is difficult to be certain, but
the eschatological flavor makes it quite possible üat
this document fumishes funher evidence that üe at-
t¡ibution of divine sonship, including the use of the
title 'lson of God," was part of the messianism of at
least someJews.
One of üe ways Philo refers to üe Logos is
as

isr1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); B. Holmberg, Paul
md Pouer (Lund: Gleerup, 1978); M. Y. MacDonald,
TIu Paulitu Cizrclra (Cambridge: University Press,
1988); B. L. Malina, Tlu Nat Testtmt Worll (Aiantz:
John Knox, 1981); D. B. Martin, §laua1 u Sahation
(New Haven: Yale University, 1990); W. A Meela,
"The Social Context of Pauline Theology"' Inü 37
(1982) 26&277; idem, Itu First [hban C[risliaru (New
Haven: Yale University, i983); idem, "A Hermeneutics
of Social Embodiment," IITR 79 (1986) 176-86; J. H'
Neyrey, Pazl, in Ahn Vlotrh (Looisülle: Westminster/
John lhox, 1990); N. R
Peteren, Rtdiscotning Panl:
Phibnon and th, Socialog of Pmls Nanatiae Wuld
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); K
Stendahl, P¿u¿
funongJrus and,
(knfik (Philadelphia: tortress, 1976);
G. Theissen, Tlu Social Sefring of Pauüne Clüi:timiE
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); A. C' Thiselton, Nm
Horizorc in HsflMnt¡ttics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992); F. Wason, Paul, and tfu C,mtilts (Cam-
l
Jrtdaism
bridge: University Press, 1986).
S. c. Barton
SONOFGOD
The divine sonship ofJesus is a major component of
Paul's christology,* though in Paul's letters the refer-
ences toJesus as God's "Son" (seventeen times in the
entire traditional Pauline corpus and only four in-
stances ofüe full title "Son of Cod") are considerably
fewer than Paul's many designations of Jesus as
"Lord"t and "Chrisr"* Some have alleged that üe
idea ofJesus'divine sonship was an appropriation of
pagan religious traditions, and that Paul thereby pre'
sented Jesus after the fashion of GrecoRoman cult
deities (sae Religions, Greco-Roman), but üe eüdence
conceming üe pagan religious background and
Paul's use of üe diüne "Son" language goes against
this.
Paul did not employ the language of divine sonship
primarily to claim that Jesus was diüne. [ssentially
Paul's references to Jesus as God's "Son" communi-
of, the enfranchisement of Christians as "sons of
God."
l. Background
2.Jesus
3.Jesus' Divine Sonship Ouside Paul
4. Paul's Usage
l. Backgroud.
1,1, Pagm. In older history-of-religions scholarship,
as represented by Bousse! Paul's references to "the
Son of God" were taken as intended ro denote Jesus
as a diüne being after the fashion of allegedly prom-
inent pagan traditions about sons of gods wiü which
Paul's Gentile converts would have been familim
(Bousset,206-10). Though others (e.g., Schoep$ have
repeated this viewpoint, it is not persuasive in üe light
of the main body of scholarly analysis which has on
the whole confirmed Paul's fundamental conceptual
indebtedness to his Jewish tradition and his disdain
for pagan religion (e.g., Blank Hengel, Kim¡.
Moreover, Bousset's idea that to communicate his
message mong his pagan converts Paul misguidedly
appropriated pag'm traditions üat produced a funda-
mentally new christology is not borne out by a careful
reading of what Paul says aboutJesus or by the rele-
vant eüdence from Greco-Roman pagan religion. As
Nock (I972) and Hengel (2141) have shown, it is dit
ficult to find true Greco-Roman parallels that would
account for Paul's üew ofJesus as God's "Son" or
render it more intelligible to Paul's Gentile converts.
The human race could be refened to as offspnng of
Zeus o¡ other gods, but this generality seems irrele-
vant to üe particular significance Paul attaahed to
Jesus as God's unique Son. A great man (e.g, Alexand'
er the Creat) mightbe styled as a son of a god, but this
appears to have been essentially an honorific ge$ure
in recognition of some quality in the man such
wisdom or military prowess, and it is not clear that the
man so designated was really thought of as anfhing
other than an exceptionally impressive human being
". . . the attempts which have been made to explain it
fiom the larger Hellenistic world fail" (Nock 1964, 45).
1.2. lruisll Consequend¡ most rholars have
tumed o theJeüsh sources as more ürecdy relevant
background lor Paul's references toJesus'diüne son-
ship. In Paul's Bible, the OT, the language of diüne
sonship is used with three q?es of referens. In pas-
sages that likely reflect an older usage, angels are re-
ferred to as '\ons of God" (e.g., Gen 6:24; Deut 32:8;
Ps 29:l; 89:6). AJthough in a number of cases in the
IXX üe Hebrew or Aramaic phrae "son(s) of God"
is rendered in Greek"angel§) of God" (e.9., Deut
as
32:8;Job 1:6; 2:l; Dan 3:25), üis is not consistently
done (cf. Deut 32:43 IXX), showing that heavenly be-
ings could still be referred to as "sons ofcod'among
Greek+peakingJews of the CrecoRoman period.
In some OT passages the Davidic king is ¡eferred
to as God's "son" (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7;89:2&27). Psalm
2:7 refers to God having "begotten" the king, but it
appears üat üis poetic language was a way of assert-
ing his divine legitimation, wiü his enüronement be-
ing talen as a kind ofdivine adoption.
Royal Davidic raditions issued intoJewish mesian-
ic hopes of Paul's time. There is, however, no unam-
bipous eüdence that the expression "son of God"
was a messianic tide, and it is difficult to say how
widely the concept of divine sonship was a part of
messianic expectation. The document known as 2 Es-
dras or 4 Ez¡a has several references to a messianic
"son" of Cod in the suwiving versions of this writing
(e.g., LatinT9lizs in ?:28; 13:32,37,52; l4:9), but it is
now commonly accepted that these all are Christian
translations of üe Greek tem paá ('tewanC'), which
in tum may have rendered the equivalent Hebrew
term 'efeQ Similarly 2 Baruch ?0:9 refers to "my Ser-
vant, the Anointed One."
as
The Qumran* text 4Q174 (4QFlorile$um) contains
a commentary on 2 Samuel 7:1 1-14, where God prom-
ises to mate David's descendant God's 'ton," and the
commentary applies the passage to üe royal messiah.
God's "firstborn son" (e.9., Philo §orn. 1.275; Conf.
li4g. 146), but there seems to be no direü connection
between üis and Paul's use of the term forJesus. In-
stead, Philo exhibits an independent appropriation of
an OT designation of the king (Ps 89:27) and of Israel
(Ex 4:22), which, howeve¡ may illustrate how biblical
imagery and concepts could be adapted to later relig-
ious belief, as seems to be the case also in the NT.
In fact the most common applications of üe con-
cept of divine sonship in ancientJewish texts are with
¡eference to the righteous individual, righteousJews
collectively and Israel as God's chosen people. In a
number of OT passages Israelites are called God's
"sons" (Deut 14:1; Is l:2;Jer 3:22; Hos l:10) and col-
lectively God's "firstborn" (Ex 4:22) and "son" (Hos
11:1). And in extra-canonicalJewish texts these appli-
cations are frequenl Wisdom 2:18; 5:5; Sirach 4:10;
Psalms of Solomon 13:9; 18:4 (righteous individual$;
Wisdom 1 2:21 ; 16: 10, 26; I 8:4, 13 (lsrzel\. ln J oseph and
Asmath, llkewrse, the righteous Israelites are called
"sons" of "the liüng God" or "the Most High" flos.
and, k. 16:14; l9:8), andJoseph (who seems to be an
idealized representation of the righteous Jew or of
Israel) is acclaimed several times as "son" and "first-
bom son" ofGod ond.,*. 6:3-5;13:13; 18:11; 21:4;
flos.
23:10).
Vemes (206-11) has cited ¡abbinic texh in which
ancientJewish holy men are referred to as a "son" of
God in the sense of being especially favored by God
With due caution about using such late texs to illus-
rate first-centuryJewish religion, we may u.ke the rab-
binic figures Vermes cites as exampl€s of the applica-
úon to panicular righteous individuals of the category
of diüne sonship as affirmed in Wisdom of Solomon
and Sirach mentioned earlier.
2. Jesus.
It is widely accepted among scholars thatJesus spoke
of God as "Father" (Aramaic 2ááá') in ways that ex-
pressed unusual familiarity and intimacy, and that he

9N 901
 Soo ofGod §on of God

refled a profound Cod in/with power lm d'¡nameil" by virtue of his res- 4, Paul's Usge.
conducted himse[ in ways that unique sta¡ding, status ¿nd favor with Cod.
sessed a
urrection luanutweos). Likewise, I
Thessalonians
In the üirteen writings auributed to Paul in üe In order to determine specifically whatJesus'
,.n.. of a special status and responsibility toward 1:9-10, which refers to Jesus as God's Son who has
NT, son-

Cod. It is reasonable, üerefore,

to consider whether üe dde "the Son of Cod' is neiüer fixed nor fre- ship connoted for Paul, we must look more closely at
might have influ been resunected to heavenly sta$s and will come as quently used, appearing only four times and in vary- the references in question. We shall concentrate on
th".. f.rt rr., of Jesus' ministry
God's Son in Paul and early deliverer fiom eschatological wrath,* is widely re- ing Greek word order (Rom 1:4; 2 Cor l:19; Gal 2:20; references in the leners whose Pauline authorship is
enced the üew ofJisus as
garded as eüdence of "pre-Pauline" diüne Son chris- In the remaining thi¡teen references to
ót.ir,i"rity. for üe present Purpose we can make tph 4:13). almost universally accepted (though Col 1:13 and Eph
tology. But ifthese passages do preserve "pre-Pauline" divine sonship, we find "his Son" (Rom l:3, 9; 4:13 in fact fit the categories established in üe undis-
onlv a few relevant obsewations' Jesus'
üat Jesus' om religious par- radition, Paul's appropriarion ofüe Eaditions shows 5:10; 8:29,32; I Cor 1:$ Cal 1:16; 4:4,6; Thess l:10), puted leuen). We shall try o establish Paul's meaning
First, it seems likely 1

of intense inter- üat he saw no essential üscontinuity between his "his om Son" (Rom 8:3), "the Son" (1 Cor 15:28) and by paying attention ro üe conrefis.
lance and practice would have been
view ofJesus and that of his predecessors and of üe "the Son of his love" (Col 1:13). The conviction thar 4.1. Tlu Gafrel @d üv Sm. In Romans l:9 Paul
und r.l.van.. fot his followers, both
duringJesus'
Jewish-Chrisúan churches such as the one
"rt inJerusa-
rni.,irt y especially in light of üe conviction that Jesus is God\ Son was apparendy whar manered to refe¡s to 'the gospel* ofhis [God's] Son," an urusual
"nd, early years ater- lem.
t n"á ¡.an resurrecte4* in üe Paul, not so much the christological tide or fixed ver- phrase in Paul (in addition to the numerous refet-
" 3.2. Afir Pttil, Jests' üvine sonship is of consider- "üe
ward. Second, Paul's presewation of üe
fuamaic term bal formulas to express that conüction. ences to gospel," cf. "the gospel of God," Rom
and his use of it able importance in the Synoptic Gospels, which were In all of his references to Jesus as God's Son Par¡l 1:l; 15:16; 2 Cor l1:7; 1 Thess 2:2, 8, 9; and "the
aüüa in his Greek-speaking churches
(Rom w¡itten after Paul's letters, and carries varying conno gospel of Christ " Rom 15:19; I Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2: 12;
in contexts mentioning Jesus' divine sonship uses the Greek definite article, not always easily rep-
to the tations in each of üe Evangelists. In MatthewJesus' resented in translations. The connotation of the def- 10:14; Gal 7:7;Phill:21; I Thess 3:2). Ir appears that
á,ff' Crf 4:6, the earliest Christian references
for as indications diüne sonship, though infrequendy mentioned has a inite article is that Paul üewsJesus' divine sonship as üe phrase is connected with the nearby references to
term) are probably best accounted
with God were very strong messianic connotation and connection unique, and does not accordJesus membership in a
that traditions aboutJesus' relationship Jesus as God's Son (Rom l:2.4), and with the larger
influential in shaping üe (e.g., Mt 16:16), and üe disciples acclaim him as God's
class of other figures who may be rega¡ded as sons of discussion in Romans in whichJesus' diüne sonship
known and were in fact
Son' Son (e.g., Mt 14:33). A similar messianic connotation God such as we encounter in üe Jewish or pagan is mentioned a number ofdmes (seven of the seven-
early Christian üew of him as God's
driven by üe to divine sonship appears in Luke (e.g., Lk l:32'35). In sources (e.g., angels,* the righteous, great men, won- in the traditional Pauline corpus; cf.
Early christology of course wm mainly teen instances
had been resunec- Mark, however, the claim is closely connected wiü the der workers; but see 4.5 below). 2 Cor 4:4, where the unique phrase "the gospel of the
conviction üat üe crucifiedJesus
But it is likely also secreq ofJesus' true (transcendent) identity and (with It is also important, Hengel has pointed out, that
ted and exalted to heavenly glory
as glory of Christ" appears to be linked similarly with üe
ministry en- the ironic exception in Mk 15:39) only God (Mk l:11; Paul refers toJesus as Cod's Son mainly (eleven times) contextual discussion of Christ's diüne glory in 2 Cor
that üe t¡aditions stemming from Jesus'
the identification of him as God's 9:7) and demons (e.g., Mk 3:ll; 5:7) recognizeJesus' in Romans and Galatians (Hengel, 7). Both the com- 3:12-4:6). But, though unique here in Paul, "the gos-
couragerl especially
diüne sonship.
"Son;; though üe meaning atteched to üat
identifi- parative infrequency and üe distribution ofPaul's ref- pel of his Son" shows that Paul could refer ro his
in the Jesus'divine sonship is important also in Hebrews, erences to Jesus as God's Son suggest that for Paul
cation seemi to have grown far more exalted message and minisE* as concerned withJesus' divine
glorification where his st¡tus as Son distinguishes him above
light of his resurrection and heavenly Jesus' diüne sonship did not constitute an appropri- sonship. And the prominence given toJesus' sonship
prophets (Heb 1:l-2) and also angels (Heb 1:3-14; in
tñ* *", eu.. .*plicit or even possible in Jesus' own ation of a pagan mythological concept as the crucial Romans and Galatians further suggests that the
2:5). Indeed, in Hebrews 1:2 the Son is "hei¡ of all means ofjustifiing the worship* of the
man Jesus identiñcation ofJesus as Cod's Son was more impor-
ministrY.
üings," giving his sonship a cosmic-scale significance. among Gentile converts (contra Bousseg 20&9). In- tant to Paul üm might at first be assumed, especia[y
It is, however, inJohn üatJesus' divine sonship has stead, Paul refers to God's Son in terms adapted from in portrafingJesus' redemptive significance in theo-
3. Divine Somhip Outside Paul'
Jesrs'
-i.1. a transcendent connotation expressed with an explic-
Ple-Patlitt¿ Tradition' A number of scholars the Jewish background to make boldly exclusivist centric contexts and vish-visJewish religious themes,
diüne imess and emphasis unmatched in any other NT wit- christological assertions in ways and contexts that in-
have argued üat Paul's references to Jesus' This suggestion is unde¡scored by Pault descrip-
ing. From the Baptist s confession (}n 1:34) to the cli-
belief in Je- teract direcdy with traditionalJewish concems. These
sonshipihow earmark of "pre-Pauline" tion in Galatians 1:15-16 of the experience thattumed
mactic purpose statement in John 20:31, üe Fourth included üe Torah
sus asóod's "Son," especiallyRomans l:1-4;1 Thessa- (see Law), the unique significance him from opponent to apostle* ofJesus: God "was
It is' Evangelist emphasizes thatJesus is to be recognized of Israel,* messianic hopes and üe fundamentally
lonians 1:10; Galatians 4:4-6; and Romans 8:3 pleased to ¡eveal his Son to me ln nnoi)" (Gal l:16).
"for- as Godt Son, And he makes it explicit that the Son is monotheisüc oudook which Paul continued to share
however, misleading to speak of a christological To be sure, Paul elsewhere refers to haüng seen 'Je.
of heavenly origin (e,g.,Jn l:14; l?:l-5). InJohn,Je-
mula" of the divinely-sent-torth Son in Paul' which and promote in his churches (.raa God). susüe Lord" (1 Cor9:l) and includes himselfin a list
Galatians 4:4' sus' claim to be God's Son amounts to a claim to di- From the entire fabric of Paul's christology, it is of those to whom "Christ" appeared (l Cor l5:l-8).
some have alleged in Romans 8:3 and
vinity, as illustrated by the charges ofblasphemy from
These two PÑine references use different Greek appar€nt that Paul sawJesus as participating in God's But Galatians 1:15-16 indicates that the experience in
l9:7).
verbs, and have in common only üe concept
of üe Jewish characters in the story 0n 5:18; 10:36; atfributes and roles, as sharing in the divine glor¡l question included the ¡ealization üatJesus is God's
sent from God, an obüous enough ThtJohannine emphasis flowered in the faith of and, most importantly, as wonhy to ¡eceive formal unique Son (ton huion autou) and that his calling was
Sontreing divinely
on a Christianity subsequently, for "Son of God" became vener¿tion wiü God in Christian assemblies (sa Wor- to proclaim God's Son (Gal l:16) specifically among
way of refening to a ñgure seen as operating
the most favored way of refening to Jesus as diüne ship). So we may say that üe one Paul called "the Son the Gentiles.* Paul had certainly already heardJew-
divine mandate.
(236) and was used to distinguish Jesus' divinity from his of God" was regarded by him as diüne in some
As for Romans 1:3-4, Hengel (59) and Scott ish-Christian claims aboutJesus, which he probably
human nature, as seen already in Ignatius (Epn. 20:2)'
have noted that attempb to reconsfiuct üe
acual unique way. But neither in the Jewish background of regarded as repugaant glorification of a false prophet,
(Je As Dunn has noted, no other christological expres- Paul nor in his own usage (unlike John\) did the and which likely fomed pan of his reason
wording of a pre-Pauline creedal statement for
sion "has had both üe historical depü and lasting
Creeds)hom Romans l:&4 have amounted to unver' language of diüne sonship in itself attribute divinity. zealously opposingJewish Chrisrians in the name of
üe power of'Son of God " (Dunn, 12). But we must be In Paul'sJewish tradition to ca.ll a human figure God s
ifiable (and divergent) hypotheses Nevertheless' Jewish tradition (Gal l:13-I4). In ancientJewish nadi
¡ convic' careful to determine Paul's connotations in referring "Son" meant primarily to atüibute to him a special
passage may well preserve basic pre-Pauline tion to hail a despised figure as a son of God vas to
descent to Jesus as God's Son without reading into it the way
tion, ,bort¡.tot as Daüdic heir by physical standing, stanrs and favor with God. Paul's references accede to the figure's diüne legitimation and right
urd by later Christians. u
(fu,ta smho\ now "appointed lhuisthcntosl the Son of
'1 the term was to Jesus the "Son" of God meant that Jesus pos- eousness (e.9., Wis 2:12-20;5:l€). Paul's reference ro

on) 90J

Son ofGod
the revelation thatJesus is üe Son of Cod(ton huirtn
aaloz), therefore, can be taken as connoting that the
experience involved for Paul a direct reve¡sal of his
view ofJesus, from false prophet to God's unique rep
resentative.
4.2. Ttu Ro4al Sm,In several passages Paul pomays
Jesus in a royal status and
role, drawing upon OT
Davidic u-aditions and applying them toJesus as rcyal-
messianic "Son" of God. We have already noted two
of üese passages as possible evidence of "pre-Paul-
ine" christology. In Romans l:3-4 there are echoes of
2 Samuel 7:12J4. As "seed lspunal of Daüd," Jesus
was "raised rpldnostasül from the dead" by God (cf.
the LXX of 2 Samuel 7:12: "I will mise uP [¿mráo]
your seed [to sprm¿ Jolr]"). AndJesus' appointrnent in
power as divine Son in Romans 1:4 may echo God's
promise in 2 Samuel 7:14, "I will be father to him and
he will be to me a son." fu well, we may have here an
allusion to Psalm 2:7, where Cod announces that he
has "begotten" the king as his Son (a symbolic de-
scription ofüe king's enthronement). And Pault ref-
erence to his mission* to secure "obedience of faith
among all üe nations/Gentileslethnxinl" (Rom 1:5)
may allude to God's promise to the royal "Son" in
Psalm 2:8 to give "the nations [drrul as your inheri-
tance."
Thessalonians 1:9-10, as in Romans 1:4,Jesus'
In I
sonship is mentioned in connection with God having
resurrected figeire) him from death. Although we do
not have allusions to OT Daüdic here, nev-
passages
enheless as the divine Son who delivers from (divine)
eschatological wrath (l Thess l:10), Jesus is given a
messianic role that can be compared with messianic
exP€ctations at Qumran and in such documents as
'eschatological flavor,
Psalms of Solomon 17-18. This
plus the contrast between pagan "idols"* and "the
living and true God" (1 Thess l:9) all reflect strongly
theJewish religious background, providing further in-
dication that the diüne "Son" here who acts on God's
behalf is, as in Romans 1:34, Godk messianic repre-
seDtative.
Anoüer reference to God's Son with a royal-mesi-
anic flavor is found in I Corinthians 15:2428. Royal
imagery abounds, with mention of a "kingdom"*
(1 Cor 15:24), Christ reigning (l Cor 15:25) and the
putting of all "enemies under his feeC' (1 Cor 15:25,
an allusion to Ps 110:1, a Davidic royal psalm fre-
quently cited and alluded to in the NT). After "all
things" (including death, 1 Cor 15:26) have been sut>
jected to this royal Son, he üll
then "be subjected" to
God (1 Cor 15:28), a thought which further shows that
the Son here is not a new and rival deity after üe
fashion ofpagan m¡hology but functions (as the OT
904
king and üe messiah figures) on God's behalf Aa4
if Colossians be accepted as from Paul, üe reference
in Colossians 1:13 to "the kingdom of the Son of his
[Godt] love" likewise a.lludes toJesus in royal-messi-
anic dress.
Certainly the scope and basis ofJesus' sonship in
Paul's references are far beyond that of the OT Da-
üdic kings. InJewish messianic expectations it is per-
haps only in the "f,lect One" ofI Enoch (37-71) wh6
sits on God's throne and seems to be clothed wiü
Eanscendent atúibutes tlat we find anything ap
proaching Paul's references toJesus, the glorious and
heavenly Son. And there is absolutely no parallel for
the idea üat the messianic figure ms to be resunect-
ed and thereby constituted God's Son who exercises
divine power* and authority.* But in the passages
considered Paul uses motifs, language and imagery
from theJewish royal-messianic tradition in express-
ing these bold beliefs about Jesus' exalted place in
God's plan.
$. ru Swifi.ed Sat In at least three other
pas-
sages Paul refers to Jesus as God's Son explicitly as
given over, or haüng given himse( to redemptive
death.+ A striking example is Romans 8:32, where
Paul says that God "did not withhold his om Son but
gave him up for us all." The statement is made even
more stunning theologically if one notices that "gave
u.p" (parad,iümi)isthe same verb Paul uses sonorously
three times in Romans l:24-28 to refer to God giving
up sinful humanity tojudgment * malingJesus'death
just as much a deliberate and solemn act of Cod as the
divine wraü against human sin referred to in Romans
1. In Romans 8:32, however, the Son is given up for
üe sake of sinful humans, and provides assurance
that üey will not be condemned and separated from
God.
But what is the signiñcance ofdesignating as God's
"Son" the one given over in Romans 8:32? In Romans
4:25 Paul uses the'terb parad.idimi to refer to 'Jesus
our Lord' being given up to deaü "for our Eansgres-
sion," and in Romans 8:34, shordy after the statement
we are exmining, Paul mentions "ChristJesus who
died," illustrating Paul's flexibility in language and
christological tides refening toJesus' deaü. The rea-
son for the choice of "Son" in Romans 8:32 seems to
be that Paul here wishes to emphasize God's personal
invesünent, so to speak, in Jesus' sacri{icial death: It
is the death of Cod's Son (see Schweizer, 384).
Paul appeus to have used a bold scriptural allusion
to underscore üis point. The phrase "did not with-
hold [ozl tptuisalolhis own Son" in Romans 8:32
seems intended to recall üe words of üe angel to
Abraham,* "you have not üthheld lath Etuisó1yot
son, your only son" (Gen 22:12, 16), likening thereby
God's offering up ofJesus to Abraham's offering of
Isa¡c.
It is üis emphasis on whatJesus'death represented
for God that also likely accoun* for Paul's reference
to "üe deaü of his [God's]Son" in Romans 5:10. The
context illustrates Paul's general tendency to use ttle
tide "Christ" in references toJesus'death (Rom 5:6,8;
and cf. the fuller "ou lordJesus Christ" in Rom 5: 1 I ),
especially in christocentdc statements that portray the
death as an act ofJesus. But Romans 5:10-11 has a
theocentric focus on reconciliation* o{ God's "ene-
mies"* to God and on God-directed rejoicing (Rom
5:11) in consequence of üis reconciliation. That üis
has taken place ürough üe death of God's Son em-
phasizes how much God has been direcdy involved in
accomplishing this reconciliation.
In Galatians 2:20 Paul refers to "the Son of God
who loved me and gave himself up lparadidónil for
me," a statement emphasizing Jesus' active role in a
larger christocentric context (Cal l:1121). The textual
variant, "God and Christ" in place of "Son of God,"
though supported by several important Greek manu-
scripts, is probably a comption of the original text.
And so we are left to try to detemine the significance
of mentioning "the Son of God" here when seven
oüer times immediately preceding and following Ga-
latians 2:20 Paul calls him 'Jesus Christ" (Gal 2:16),
"ChristJesus" (Gal 2:16) and "Christ" (Gal 2:16-19, 21).
The expression "the Son of God" emphasizes the
very high diüne favor and honor of üe one whose
love and selfgiving is stated. And this description of
Jesus also implicidy makes Cod a party to Jesus' re-
demptive actions, as is conñrmed in the following
statement (Gal 2:21) where Paul refers to "the grace
of God" in connection withJesus' death.
Given that Romms 8:32 shows üat Paul could liken
the death of God's Son to the offering of Isaac, it is
also possible that Pault reference in Galatians 2:20 to
the self-giving of the Son of God shows an acquain-
tance wiüJewish tradition about the story. Though
the Genesis account is silent about Isaac's anitude,
ancient Jewish tradition atributes to him an eager
willingrress to offer himself in obedience to God (e.&,
Pseud+Philo Biá. Ant. 18:5; 32:24; 4}:2;Josephus Azt.
1.r3 24 §§225"36),
,:.
.. Tlu Sm mdtlu ?ora,ll. Scholars fiequently point
to Romans 8:3 and Galatians 4:4 as examples of a
christological "fomula' in which the Son is referred
to as "sent" by Cod. But, as has already been indicat-
ed, the identification of a verbal "fomul¿" in these
passages is dubious. It is far more relevant that boü
of these references to the Son being sent are in con-
Son ofGod
texts dea-ling wiü üe Torah, the Jewish Law.* The
sending of üe Son in Romans 8:34 is precisely to
oyercome the inability of the Tor¿h to save as de-
scribed in Romans ?, and to ma-ke possible the fulfill-
ment the Torah's 'lust requirement" in the freedom*
of the Spirit* given through the Son. And Galatians
4:4 mentions üe Son being sent forth'to redeem
üose who were under üe law" (the limitations of
¡ryhich re emphasized in Galatians 3:l--4:l) and to
make possible their "adoption* as sons."
As well, in Romans 8:3 and Calat.ians 4:4 Paul em-
phasizes that the divine Son appeared in human form,
which may allude to üe idea ofJesus being an "incar-
nation" ofüe "preexistent"* Son. But the humanity
of the Son also means that the divinely initiated de-
live¡ance from the Torah's condemnation was effect-
ed by the Son üthin üe sphere of human eistence,
specifica.lly ürough his deaü.
4.5. Tlw Sa¡ arul Godt Sm. Though he consistendy
designatesJesus as the divine Son with an exclusivity
connoted, in several passages Paul implicidy or explic-
idy refers to the enÍianchisement of the ¡edeemed
into fellowship* withJesus and into a filial relation-
ship with God patterned afterJesus' sonship (on this
see esp. Byrne). Galatians 4:5 gives as the purpose of
the sending ofthe Son "that we might receive sonship
lhuiotlusial" @e Ldoption, Sonship), and üe following
verses refer to Christians as God's "sons" (huioil who
have received "the Spirit ofhis Son," whojoin the Son
in calling upon God as "Abba, Faüer," and are now
God's heirs. (And, as Gal 3:27-28 makes clear, the
'tons" ofGod include both female and nale on equal
terms [hence one can, üth the NRSV, translate lruioi
as "children"l.)
In Romans 8 as well, Paul explicitly connecsJesus
the Son with üe sonship of Christians. After refening
to the sending of the Son in Romans 8:3, Paul men-
tions üe bestowal of the Spirit (Rom 8:113, explicidy
Iinked withJesus, "the Spirit ofChrist " Rom 8:9), and
refers to Christians as "sons of God" (Rom 8:14) who
call to God as "Abba, Iather" (Rom 8:15) and are
"fellow heirs with Chrisr" And in Romans 8:18-27
Paul elaborates both prercnt and future consequences
of diüne adoption. Then comes Romans 8:2&30, a
very üeocentric passage emphasizing Cod's redemp-
nve initiative, in which the redeemed are said to have
been "predestined to be conformed to the image of
his Son, in order that he might be the firstbom within
a large family" (Rom 8:29 NRSV). That is, the one
divine Son here is the protot,?e as well as the agent
through whom others are enñanchised as sons of
God. The uniqueness ofJesus the Son is not restrictive
but redemptive. Th e term firstbom* may allude to Ex-
905
Spirituality
odus 4:22, applying to Jesus a title of Israel and con-
noting üat he has become the basis of God's recon-
stinrted people thx includes bothJew md Gentile.
The remaining Pauline references to the Son re-
flect this idea of God enfranchising others through
üe unique Son into a standing likened to his. I Co-
rinthians l:9 describes Christians as called by God
into the "fellowship/participation lkoinónial of his
Son," which suggests tlat üeir status is both depend-
ent upon üe Son and also a partaking in his filial
status. And 2 Corinüians 1:19-20 probably is to be
seen as alluding to someüing similar. The divine
"yes" is inJesus, the Son ofGod (2 Cor l:19), because
"al[ the promises of God find their Yes in him" (2 Cor
1:20). And this that Christians are enfran-
means
chised as Gods own ürough üe Son (2 Cor 1:20b)
and given the Spirit as guarantee offull eschatological
salvation* (2 Cor 1:22). (The "knowledge of üe Son
ofGod" in Eph 4:13 is probably also m allusion to the
idea of the redemption of the elect being pattemed
afterJesus' divine sonship.)
This idea of other sons or children of God is inter-
esting in light of the strong connotation of üe
uniqueness ofJesus' divine sonship we have noted
earlier. The resoludon to üe apparenr tension seems
to be that Paul consistendy refers to the sonship of
Christians as de¡ived sonship, given through and after
the pattem ofJesus, whereasJesus is üe original pro-
totype, whose sonship is not derived from anotler.
S¿¿ ¿lso A¡oruo¡1, Sousrnr; Crm.sr; Cup.rsroloc!
DEATH oT CHHST; EXALTATION AND EMIHRONIMENI;
FnErsoRN; GoD; HoLy SpEm; JMACE, Iu,tc¡ or C,oo;
LoRD PRr.ExrsrENcE.
BrBuocRAPHy, J. Blan\ Paulus zzdleszs (SANT 16;
Munich: Kósel, 1968); W. Bousseg Kyios CJrrulos
(Nashülle: Abingdon, 1970 [1921]); B. Byme, '§0ru o/
C,od"-"\¿ed of ñraharn" (AnBib 83; Rome: Pontifical
Institute, 1 979); O. Cullma¡rn, Tlu C/¡nbl okg oJ tlu New
Tatament (London: SCM, 1963); D. Cuss, Inpnial Cult
and Honorary Tmns in tlu Neu T¿sfaml (Paradosis 23;
Fribourg: University ofFribourg 1974);J. D. G. Dunn,
Clnistolng in tlu Malrrg €d ed.; London: SCM, 1989);
J. A. Fiumyea A Wandning,\ramzan: C¡ll¿cted Aramaic
,Essals (SBLMS 25; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979);
M. HenB:I, Tlu Son of Crd (Philadelphia: Forúess,
1976l¡;5. Kjn,, Tlu üiginolP¿u¿3 C,orp¿¿ (2d ed; WUNT
2/4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984); W lhamer,
Clvist, Lu4 Sor o/Cúd (SBT 50; londoú: SCM, 1966);
O. Michel, "Son," MDñ4? 3.607-68; A. D. Nock,
" 'Son of Cod' in Pauline and Hellenistic Thought "
in Esay on fuligion arul tlu Ancitnt l4torU,, ed Z. Stew-
art (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 2.928-39; idem, Emll
Catib Chri:üaniE and i¡s Heilm;.stic Bmkground, (New
906
Spiritulity
York Harper & Row, 1964); H.J. Schoeps, Pazl (Phil- 3. Pauline Spirinrality: 'Yes to God" most urgent aspects of (Christian) eústence, uncer-
adelphia: Westminster, 1961); E. Schweizer et al., 4. The Experiential f'oundation of Pauline tainty regarding the so-called cmturm Pauli.run sug-
"uíóq, uío9eoía," ?DNT MII.33499; J. M. Scott, ádop- Spirituality gests üe likelihood üat interpreters will diverge in
tim a Sons o/ God (WUNT 2/48; Tübingen: J, C, B. 5. Union with Christ their understanding of Pauline spirituality. However,
Mohr, 1992); G. Vermes, Jaus üu Jru (New York: 6. The Practice of üe Spirit the problem runs deeper than this. Interpreters have
Ha¡per & Row, 1973). 7. Spirituality md Sanctification not been unified in üe way they approach the imme-
L. W Hunado 8. Sin and Sanctification diate reference point ofsprn?- in the Em s|itituaüq.
9. Imitation and Discipleship Should üose who wish to comprehend Pauline spir-
SONGS. &¿ HyMNs, HyilrN IhAcMENTs, SoNGs, SprR. 10. The Triad ofPrayer, Word and Community ituality understand sp#i,- to refer to the humm spint
ITIIAISONGS, I l. Prayer as a Primary Paradigm ofSpirituality or to the Iloll Spirit? Suely the Pauline answer is the
12. The Loius ofSpirituality Holy Spirit
SONS OF ABRAIIAM. Su A¡r¡rnu. 13. The Fruit and Gifu of the Spirit Although the entire Pauline corpus must naturally
14. The Spirit and the Common Life proüde the grist for understanding Pauline spiritual-
SONSHIP. S¿¿ A¡omoN, SoNsHn; SoN oF GoD. 15. Grati¡ude: The Heartbeat ofPauline Spirituality ity, Paulk letter to the Roman church, as the mature
16. Summary summary of his theology, ethics and spirituality, is the
SOUL, S¿ PsycHor-ocv. touchstone for interpreúng Pauline spirinrality.
L Background.
SPIRIT (HUMAN). S¿¿ PsycHor-ocy. However one understands and defines üe spirituality 2. The Spirit ofGod and Spirituality.
of Paul, üere is general agreement that it was both If Paul himself is allowed to determine the meaning
SPIRIT OF CHRIST. &¿HoLySprRr. notewonhy in itself and critical in shaping the spiri- of the word sp;r;lwkty in Christian usage, then one
tua.lity of the Christian church. Paul called Christian cannot speak of 'the spirituality" of Paul apart from
SPIRIT OF GOD. S¿¿ HolvSprur, believers to imitate* his apostolic life a¡d service* to recognizingthat Pauline spirituality (boü words are to
Christ-which he experienced in üe power* of the be emphasized here) is grounded in and determined
SPIRIT WORLD. S¿¿ Alrcrrs, AncuANc¡r-s; Spirit-even as he was an imitator of Christ (e.g., I Cor by üe divine, rrinitarian community-God the Father,
D[MoNs, ExoRCrsM; HoLy SprRrr; MAGrc; PpJNci?Nfi[s 1l:1; cf. 1 Thess l:6). Oüer thanJesus Chris! wor- Jesus Christ the Son* and üe Holy Spirit (sn God). For
AND POWIRS; SATAN,DEVIL shiped and served as Lord over all, no other person Paul üe glory and the basis of the iazaz spirit is
has had a greater impact vpon Christian spirituaüty established md directed by the IIoJI Spirit (Rom 8:l-
SPIRITUAL GIFTS. S¿¿ Coru¡nHrANs, l,ErrrRs ro than Paul. 17; I Cor 2:12-16; 12:l-11; 2 Cor 1:21- 22; 5:5; Gal 3:l-
THE; Crm oF THt SprpJr. The importance of Pa¡rl notwithstandin$ the mod- 6;4:l-7).
ern quest to understand Pauline spirituality takes Paul's proclamation of salvation* and his instruc-
SPIRITUAL SONGS. S¿¿ Hwus, HnrN FRAG place in a paradoxical setting. On the one hand, üe tion regarding the mission of God in the world* is
MEM§ SoNcs, SPIRITUAI SoNc$ word. spiritualiq, though widely used toda¡ finds no predicated on the understanding that üe Holy Spirit,
consensus regarding its general definition, let alone promised in üe OT as a decisive aspect ofthe eschat-
SPIRITUALITY Pauline spirituality. (lndeed,, spiritualiE often seems to ological time of salvation, is powerfully at work in the
Spirituality in Paul can best be summarized as an ex- be subject to mutually exclusive defrnitions.) Just as world (sea Eschatology). This is most decisively evident
pression ofaffirmation to God,* a grateful'Yel'from Christianity historically has been muked by consider- in üe Spirit's raising Jesug God's Messiah, fiom
the heart of a believer which, in the power of the able confessional and other differences, so there have death* to life and now mediating üe presence of the
Spirit, is manifested in act and attitude. The glory and been divergent understandings of Pauline spirituality. risen, exalted* Christ to the belieüng community (Gal
the possibility of this 'Yes" are grounded in God's In fac1 the variery of Christian denominations can 4:16; Eph 1:13). The aposde also asociates the Holy
"Yes" to the believer in Jesus Christ,* a "Yes" expe- plausibly be attributed to divergent interpretations of Spirit with üe believer's initial act of faith* (Gd 3:l-
rienced and expressedby Paul (2 Cor 1:17-20) and set Pauline spirituality. Although some NT schola¡s locate 6;4:1-7; I Cor 12:3; Rom 8:12-l?), as well as the con-
out in Romms 8 as the thrust of his life and teaching. the differences within Paul himself, the spirituality of tinüng conñrmation and estabüshment of believers
The affirmations of Pauline spirinrality may be pic- Paul, like his üeological perspective, has a coherence as sons and daughterc of God in a community of üe
tured as an ellipse representing the believer's life. The that is fiequendy overlooked. Spirit (2 Cor 13:13; cf. 1 Cor 12; 14) fiom whose heans
Holy Spirit* x the effective power at work in üe be- The history of Pauline interpretation has unveiled and lips arise the prayer, "Abb4 Father" (Rom 8:15;
liever eliciu the believer's 'Yes" to God, a 'Yes" that the depth and breadth and complexity of Pauline Gal 4:6; sze Adoption, Sonship; Unrgical Elements).
is expressed in the interactive poles ofthe ellipse-(1) üought-whether obsened as theology or ethics* or
the priüleged responsibilities of üe child of God (es- spirituality. No one ofthese üree perspectives on Paul 3. Pauline Spiritualitf'Yes to God."
pecially the triad of prayer,* word and community, stands in isolation from the others. The complexity of The spirinrality of Paul may be deñned as the grateful
culminating in worship*), and (2) the comprehensive Pau[ is exemplihed in üe failure of Pauline schola¡s and heartfelt "Yes to God," üe response of the child
obedience represented by the fruit+ of üe Spirir even to approach a consensus regarding the "center"* ofGod to üe call ofGod in the Spirir Expressed both
l. Background of Pauline thought. Since üere is widespread agree- in act and attitude, üe believer lives in obedience to
2. The Spirit of Cod and Spiriruality ment that "spirituality" has to do wiü the cent¡al and and imitation ofJesus Christ, the true Son ofGod, and
907