disclaimer: so this post is going to have some top quality christian propaganda in it; in my opinion that makes it all the better, but you can feel as you will
hola (that’s “hello” for all you french-speakers out there). so i was in church last week (on friday, september 14th, to be rather precise), and it just so happened to be the feast day for the exaltation of the holy cross. while not a holy day of obligation, it was still kind of a big deal. you could tell this because instead of the normal reading – psalm – gospel order that daily masses normally partake in, this mass was more sunday-esque with the reading – psalm – reading – gospel lineup. i don’t mean to degrade the first three members of that group (which happened to come out of numbers 21:4-9, psalms 78: 1-2 and 34-38, and philippians 2:6-11, respectively), but the reason i bring up my ecumenical outing is due to the gospel reading. this reading came straight out of the book of john, chapter 3, verses 13-17. now if you’re in any way biblically literate (and i can say this solely because i consider myself extremely biblically illiterate and still know a bit of this reading), you might have already picked up on the fact that this biblical slice just so happens to include one of the more (and/or most) well-known bible passages in today’s lovely world. that passage is john 3:16 which reads (in the new american translation), “for god so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” a lovely passage indeed. it’s hard to deny that. but at the same time, it got me thinking. and honestly, this idea had been floating around in my head for a while. but when it was read in church, that was it for me. it made me think. and when i think, i blog. and when i blog, you have to suffer the consequences. sorry.
my thinking, getting back on track, was about the dandy little phrase “his only son”. this, if you didn’t know, is in reference to jesus of nazareth (who christians consider to be the christ, messiah, and savior of all). now it’s only three little words (comprising of only twelve measly characters in a microsoft word spelling and grammar check), but those three words (in my mind at least) pack a wallop (which urbandictionary.com defines as a “pseudo-violently high-powered action performed abruptly”, so it’s quite a thing). it’s not that i have a problem with the phrase, but i do have kind of a big problem with that phrase. well, less of a problem and more of a confusion. a bewilderment, if you will. for if you’ve ever been to church on a (pseudo-)regular basis, you’ve probably heard at least once (or maybe even twice) that you are a “child of god”. this, of course, makes the group around you in the religious community “children of god”, as the phrase is often put. and this is where the problem comes in. god is the father (…and the son, and the holy spirit. but the internet doesn’t have enough space to even begin to try and figure out the holy trinity, so we’re not going to go there at the moment). and we’re (all, if you choose to be at least. though, i guess in my opinion we’re all his children, and people who don’t want to believe that are just kind of like the rebellious kids who don’t like their parents [whether warranted or not. and in this case i'd go with the not] and disassociate themselves from their families as much as possible) his kids. so english language-ly speaking, we are also his sons and daughters. this being another term that you (the [pseudo-]regular churchgoer) may have encountered. but… hmm. going back to john (who i’m assuming was a lovely man back in his day), we see that jesus was the only son of god. but according to popular linguistics, i (and you, if you happen to be a male) am a son of god. i can assure you right here and now that i am not jesus (thank goodness. i don’t think i could take the pressure). so how does that work? my best answer is as follows: not really sure.
what i am really sure about is that the internet is quite an intellectual resource. so i did a bit of searching to quench the thirst of my quandary. in the “son of god” page on the wonderful wikipedia(.com), we find this line right in the opening paragraph: “in christian traditions [son of god] refers to the relationship between jesus and god, as well as a relationship achievable by believing christians”. so yeah, no help. they covered both bases to be safe. interestly, however, it does bring up a good point a bit further down the page about chapter 1 (verse 12) in the book of john. this verse states “but to those who did accept [jesus] he gave power to become children of god…” so jesus, the only son of god only a few pages later, gave us the power to also be sons of god. interesting.
a quick google search of the term “‘his only son’ god” brought me back to my roots. sadly, wikipedia is not the end-all be-all source of information (shocking, i know), and so i ventured forward, this time straight into the catechism of the catholic church to see what it had to say. thank goodness for the internet, because just looking through my copy of the catechism might have taken a while, but instead my online searching lead me straight to part one (the profession of faith), section two (the profession of the christian faith), chapter two (i believe in jesus christ, the only son of god), article ii (“and in jesus christ, his only son, our lord”), paragraph iii (the only son of god). the most relevant statements, i thought at least, were numbers 441 and 444. number 441 states, “in the old testament, ’son of god’ is a title given to the angels, the chosen people, the children of israel, and their kings. it signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between god and his creature. when the promised messiah-king is called ’son of god’, it does not necessarily imply that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts. those who called jesus ’son of god’, as the messiah of israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this.” personally, i found the “adoptive sonship” line to be most interesting. number 444 then follows with “the gospels report that at two solemn moments, the baptism and the transfiguration of christ, the voice of the father designates jesus his ‘beloved son’. jesus calls himself the ‘only son of god’, and by this title affirms his eternal pre-existence. he asks for faith in ‘the name of the only son of god’. in the centurion’s exclamation before the crucified christ, ‘truly this man was the son of god’, that christian confession is already heard. only in the paschal mystery can the believer give the title ’son of god’ its full meaning.” because i know you want to know, the jesus calling himself the “only son of god” part of that is footnoted with a reference to john 3:16. darn, no help there. but, the “he asks for faith…” part two sentences later references john 3:18 (which was conveniently [or not so conveniently] just beyond the extent of the church reading), which states, “whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only son of god”. there it is again, that same crazy phrase. still without explanation (but thankfully, my notes in my bible pointed out to me the root of the greek word for condemn. yeah, helpful).
further searching sent me to an interesting blog called “the monroe doctrine” and specifically a post on it entitled “jesus christ, his only son, our lord“. it seems to be part of a series of posts about the apostle’s creed and has a whole section about the whole “only son” situation. it reads, “the phrase ‘god’s only son’ focuses on relationships within the trinity. god the son is not inferior to the father, but has submitted to the father in order to accomplish the godhead’s eternal purposes. the terms father and son reveal the eternal and perfect familial love within the godhead”. personally, i found that pretty interesting, though not particularly helpful. for some reason, it seems that people are extremely willing to call jesus the “only son of god” while at the same time calling themselves “children of god” even if they might happen to contradict a tad bit (with “a tad bit”, of course, meaning completely).
the only real concept that has brought about any inkling of “okay, maybe that has something to do with it…”, in my mind at least, was in number 441 of the catechism. the whole adoption thing got me thinking. maybe jesus is god’s real kid. and the rest of us are all just kind of step-kids. yeah, i know. it doesn’t really make any sense, but i’m working on it. it’s tough when you don’t have much to go on. i came across a sermon on the national presbyterian church website entitled “jesus christ, his only son, our lord“, and i had some high hopes for it. but once again, this explanation falls short. here is the relevant section to read if you so desire: “so much for the relevance of his name. think with me now about his relation to the father as expressed in the words, ‘his only son.’ we in the west can be excused for thinking of biological childbirth when we recite that phrase in the creed. we may even fall to wondering at what point in eternity past god the father gave birth to the son. but that is not the meaning of the phrase, ‘his only son.’ in the hebrew mind, to be a son of someone has far more to do with common ideals than with common ancestry. even in our culture, when someone says, ‘he is a son to me’ they are not talking about matching blood types but about kindred spirits. winston churchill had a son, randolph, but the two never got along very well… but in parliament, churchill had an admiring young colleague named brendon bracken. bracken followed churchill through thick and thin, even to the point of bailing churchill out of financial difficulty just before the second world war… it could be said that bracken was more a son to churchill than randolph, because churchill and bracken were cut from the same cloth. we christians confess that jesus christ is god’s only son in precisely that sense. not that the son is the physical descendent of god the father, for they are co-eternal members of the trinity; but that jesus alone reflects with perfect clarity the glory of the father, and performs with absolute faithfulness the father’s will.”
what i find rather interesting is that the whole “only son of god” thing seems to have been pretty well established by the time jesus was around. the concept was there. it wouldn’t really be until a bit later that the church would decide that he actually did fit the bill like he said, but the concept was there. and if that had stayed it’s course things would have been fine and dandy. unfortunately (for the sake of this concept but not for christianity in general), paul came around. and he decided to write about how we are all children of god (see romans 8:14-15 and 2 corinthians 6:17-18 [among others] for more information). that changed things up a bit. threw a wrench in the works, i guess you could say. of course, it’s a beautiful thing to be a child of god, and that “title” (for lack of a better term) truly does emphasize the concept that god loves you unconditionally. in that regard, it makes perfect sense. in the logical sense, it’s all there.
but logical is not really my field. not at the moment, at least. not when i (and maybe only i) can see the great debate of “son of god vs. children of god” ravaging forth across the land (yeah, i went for the big time dramatic effect on that one). is there an answer? well, maybe. but not a concrete one from what i know and have read. maybe we’re step-kids. maybe we kids in sense of “he is a son to me”. maybe we’ve just gotten so used to using both terms that they’re both right (or both wrong), and it’s just easier to keep them both going. i don’t know. when i started researching this topic, i had very honestly hoped that i would figure this out. that there would be a simple, straight-forward answer. but i guess there just isn’t. i guess it’s just one of those read about it, think about it, pray about it, and then believe what you believe about it kind of things. darn christianity. always so full of derstandable things (derstandable, of course, being the opposite of understandable. you can’t say “not understandable”. it’s a double negative. so just drop the “un”. makes sense to me at least).
so as i’ve come accustomed to often doing, i’ll leave you with something. this time it will be a website. and another version of the answer. for me, i couldn’t decide whether it was the most helpful or least helpful answer i found. it’s weird. kind of risque and out there. in fact, it’s supposedly from jesus himself (such excitement, i know). it’s from the answer to the question “was jesus christ the only son of god?” on a website simply called “ask the real jesus”. i’ll only quote one portion below, but the whole thing is an interesting read. this section, though, really caught my eye. it’s quite innovative (and apparently, by the editor’s note-like comment in parentheses at the end, jesus wasn’t so sure about it either). so good luck on your search for the answer about whether or not you’re really god’s kid (and also your answers to all life’s question, i suppose). it really is a tough one. here’s how jesus puts it: “from god’s viewpoint, a lost soul is still one of his sons or daughters. yet, if you go inside the box of the soul, inside the soul’s sense of identity, that soul does not see itself as a son or daughter of god. therefore, in the here and now, the soul is not acting as a son or daughter of god. if a soul does not accept its divine origin, it cannot express its divine potential. if a soul does not accept its potential to be the christ, then the soul cannot be the christ in action. when i appeared on earth 2,000 years ago, only a few people had come to a full realization of their christhood. therefore, one might say that i appeared at a time when there was no other son or daughter of god on earth. i had realized the fullness of my sonship, and therefore i was and i acted as a son of god. in other words, when you look at this situation from a specific viewpoint, it is possible to say that jesus christ was indeed the only son of god who appeared in that particular place at that particular time. therefore, i can understand that some christians have strong feelings for this idea (i am not saying that i share those feelings).”
