In Judaic terminology son of God; is about a person close to God, not a singular Son. Similar with the term father. Therefore, these terms of Jesus is about a common humanity.
Question:
In Judaic terminology, the phrase “Son of God” often signifies closeness to God rather than a literal or exclusive divine status. Given that the Bible frequently uses such language—and that both Jews and Christians address God as “Father”—it becomes difficult to see how this title alone justifies a unique claim to divinity for Jesus. Expressions like “My Father and your Father,” “Our Father in heaven,” and “my God and your God” seem to emphasize the shared relationship of all people with God, pointing more toward the brotherhood of humanity under the fatherhood of God than toward any singular divine status for Jesus. What is your response?
Answer:
First of all, what you say about the use of the phrase in the Old Testament is correct. The phrase “son of God” is not used as a term to denote deity in the Old Testament. Also, although “Father” is used of God quite rarely in the Old Testament, again, when it is used it is used in the sense you mention, more as God as a Father to believers, not as one who has a unique Son. All this is true, but it also is relatively unimportant for our interpretation of the New Testament. The question I think you are addressing is whether Jesus, who is called the Son of God, is a Son in a unique way—radically different from the way that all humans other than Jesus are sons (small s) of God. Really, the question is whether Jesus is deity–whether he is God.
The answer is a very clear and unambiguous yes. Your premise is that some passages which refer to Jesus as Son of God in the New Testament are ambiguous as to his deity, which is true. However, that Jesus is the unique Son of God—deity—is clear from the New Testament. Many passages prove this. For example, there is John 8:58-59 in which Jesus unambiguously uses the name “I AM” of himself, after which the Jews picked up stones to stone him, not for claiming to have a “shared relationship of all people” with God! No, it was because he claimed deity. If that was not completely clear, then there is John 10:30-32, when Jesus said to the Jews, “I and the Father are one.” In the context, he is claiming deity, but it is possible we might be able to squeak out of that one, except for the response of the Jews. They attempt right then and there to stone him. Why? “Because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” Jesus did not deny the accusation. Then there is John 1:1, followed by John 1:14 and 1:18 which identify the Word who became flesh (v. 14) as God (v. 1), and also as the only begotten (or uniquely begotten) Son of God (v. 14,18). Let me add one more. In John 8:36 we read this: “If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed.” Here, Jesus is clearly referring to himself, and he is rather obviously describing himself as a special and unique Son, not as one of many “sons” of God. Again, this is a clear reference to Jesus as a unique Son, and not as having some sort of shared relationship of all people.
There are many other passages which clearly point to the deity of Jesus (as well as a few which are used to “prove” his deity which can be taken as somewhat ambiguous, as you say). I will leave it at those four examples. If you go to my web site and look up an article about the Jehovah Witnesses, you will find a number of additional passages which affirm without any reasonable doubt whatsoever that Jesus is the unique Son of God and that he is deity. The fact which you accurately point out, which is that the terms son of God and Father in the Old Testament do not prove Jesus is God is true, but it does nothing to undo the clear and unambiguous New Testament case for who Jesus is.
John Oakes
