Solomon and Jesus — Two Sons of God, and of David?

Solomon’s presence in the polemic regarding Jesus’ divinity as the Son of God can be traced to a single act of rhetoric in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The authorship of that text, which dates to the second century, was attributed to Paul152 first by Eastern and later by Western Christianity, and this remained a commonly accepted view until the Reformation.153 Some of the Church Fathers addressed the stylistic disparities between that epistle and others attributed to Paul with the explanation that he had composed the former in Hebrew rather than in Greek, or that Paul strove to conceal his authorship for reasons of modesty.154 The fact that many citations from the Bible are found throughout Hebrews has given rise to various hypotheses regarding the identity of its audience, which I

In the course of his third journey Paul arrivedatEphesus,¹⁶³ and there toohe "spoke out boldly",p reachingf or threef ull months "about the kingdom of God".¹⁶⁴ To convince skeptics,h ep osed the rhetorical question that would connect between aonetime king and anew Messiah: Fortowhich of the angels did God ever say, "Youare my Son; todayIhavebegotten you"?¹⁶⁵ The intended answer is clear: onlytohis son Jesusdid the 'Father' (God) inform him of his birth", while his latter quote "Iwill be his Father,a nd he will be my Son" claims only that God will be af ather to Jesus, and not that God has begottenh im.
Here, Paul is referring to Psalm2 :7-8: "Iw ill tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, "Youare my son; todayIhavebegottenyou. Ask of me, and Iwill make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession"-a verse thatPaulmaintains refers not to Solomon but to Jesus. One may, of course, wonder whyafather should informh is son of the fact of his birth on that very day; the answer is that Paul'schoice to open his appeal with abiblical reference was the rhetorical device that allowed him to claim Jesus' sole sonship to God, but in doing so, he unintentionallye voked the question of "double sonship".
Regardless of whether Paul or alater author composed the Epistle to the Hebrews,¹⁶⁶ it was unquestionablydirected at Jews rather thanpagans; onlythe former could have recognizedits biblical references and ascertained "whether these thingsw eres o " . ¹ ⁶⁷ One maya lsoa ssume that Paul'sl isteners,w hent old that after Jesus' baptism in the Jordan av oice from Heavenc alled forth "Youa re my Son, the Beloved; with youIa mw ellp leased",¹⁶⁸ would not have found these words incongruous, since they are nearlyidentical to those of the prophet Nathanabout Solomon. Nor would it have seemed out of place that when his disciples suggested to Jesust hat he erect three tabernacles on the mountain-"one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah"-av oice spokef rom within ac loud saying "This is my Son, my Chosen;l istent oh im!"¹⁶⁹ they would not have been fazed by the use of the word "son" (υἱός)but they would certainlyhaveunderstood it metaphoricallya sareferencet oN athan'st idingsc oncerning God's  Trebilco (2004).  Acts 19:8.Acts 17 tellsofJews fromBeroea(Aleppo)who were abletorefertothe Bible and evaluate the reliability of Paul'sq uotations from it.  Hebrews 1:5.  Richards (2004). In Larry W. Hurtado'sv iew, "it is particularlys ignificant that Paul describes his religious re-orientation as caused by ad ivine revelation to him of Jesus as God's unique 'Son'" (Gal 1:15). Hurtado (2005,p .3 4).  Acts 17:11.  Mark 1:11.  Luke 9:35. promise to David: "When your days are fulfilledand youlie down with your ancestors, Iwill raise up your offspringa fter you, who shallc ome forth from your body, and Iwill establish his kingdom. He shallbuild ahousefor my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.Iwill be afather to him, and he shall be as on to me".¹⁷⁰ The promise of fatherhood is repeated in Chronicles,w hereD avid states: "And of all my sons, for the Lordhas givenmemany, he has chosen my son Solomon to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LordoverIsrael. He said to me, 'It is your son Solomon who shallbuild my house and my courts,for Ihavechosen him to be as on to me,a nd Iwillb eafather to him'".¹⁷¹ This assertion is repeated in Psalm 2:7: "Iwill tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, 'Youare my son; todayIh aveb egotten you'".
The Epistle to the Hebrews'"Iwill be to him afather" (Ἐγὼἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα)m ay certainlybeinterpreted as referringt oadoptive fatherhood( " Iwill be," rather than "Ia m " ). Moreover,H ebrews refers to Israel as ac ollective son: "And youh avef orgotten the exhortation that addresses youa sc hildren-'My child, do not regardl ightlyt he discipline of the Lord, or lose heart when you are punished by him; […]f or the Lordd isciplinest hosew hom he loves, and chastises every child whom he accepts'".¹⁷² Thus, all those baptized as Christians become the children of God. The Gospels provide asimilarlyexpansive vision of the divine family-"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God".¹⁷³ It would be possible, then, to interpret the Epistle to the Hebrews as describingtwo types of paternity:corporeal ("todayIhave begotten you",though here 'begetting' [Ego semerong egennekas e ]m ay also be viewed as am etaphorical personification)¹⁷⁴ and adoptive-ar elationship between af ather and his  2Samuel 7:12-14.See Sergi (2010); Avioz(2005); Chae (2006). Josephus does not repeat the words of the prophet Nathan that Solomon will be as a "son" to God, nor his words regarding David. He writes that Solomon is the heir "chosen by God",while the designation "my son" refers to the fact that he is the son of David (Antiquities VII: 373 -74).  1C hronicles 28:5 -6.  Hebrews 12:5 -6.  Matthew 5:9.  See Lakoffa nd Johnson (2003). Maimonides' objection to the metaphorical perception of God probablys temmed fromt he understandingt hat am etaphor could easilyb ecome concrete. Ishould note herethat Mary'svirgin birth is not the onlymiraculous birth mentioned in biblical sources( See Kara-Ivanov Kaniel 2014). The writers of the Gospels requiredawoman'sw omb so that Jesus might be born of it,a lthough the omnipotent God could have "created" a "human" son without such an eed. (That,i ndeed, is what the Quran claims.) On an earlyp olemic in relation to avirgin birth, see Chapters 63 -79 of Justin Martyr (2003).
Chapter Two: Solomona nd Jesus-TwoS ons of God, and of David? chosen, beloved son(s).¹⁷⁵ Thus, we mayassume that aJ ew would not have been disorientedbyHebrews' use of the terms 'father' and 'son',¹⁷⁶ but would have understood them as ametaphor for the biblical ideal code of rights and duties that exists between apeople (or aking) and God (though in ancient Israel the perception of the kingsassons of God did not exist.¹⁷⁷ Biblical phrases such as "on holy mountains, from the womb of the morning,l ike ad ew your youth will come to you"¹⁷⁸ make reference to am essianic future and the metaphoric nature of the God'sc hoice of Solomon as David'sh eir is very clear from the languageu sed: "Among the manyn ations there was no king likeh im, and he was beloved by his God".¹⁷⁹ * "Nothing may hinder us from confessing the absolute equality of the Father,S on, and Holy Spirit" Augustine, On the Holy Trinity,B ook VI:10.¹⁸⁰ Is it possiblet hat God had two sons-thatb othS olomon and Jesus of Nazareth wereg ranted sonship?Perhaps Jesus' description as the son of God, like thatof Solomon, wasintended at first merelytoinvoke aprevalent metaphor,whose nature would changer adicallyo vert ime. (Pursuing this question would lead me deep within high Christology and Ileave it to other studies to do so.) Thefigure of Jesus in the New Testamentcomprises several aspects, and in the four Gospels and the Epistles, these aspects are givendifferent emphases and meaning,¹⁸¹ just as differing versions exist of the storyo ft he nativity.Thism ultiplicityr esulted from the various views contained in the New Testament itself and from the polemic on the true natureofJesusthat took place earlyinthe process of Christian- ity'sd evelopment during the establishment of the Christian canon; the polemic was settled by the Nicene Creed (Symbolum Nicaenum)in325.¹⁸² However,inthe New Testament,Jesusappears as the son of God, is identified with God,¹⁸³ and is nonetheless at once af lesh-and-blood Messiah.¹⁸⁴ Diverse meaningsattached, in ancient Christology and onwards, to the idea of God's "divine paternity" and of Jesus as the "son of God";this was asourceof controversy and acause for schism. Jesus was seen as, inter alia,the primordial son of God-"the firstborn of all creation", "He is the imageo ft he invisible God".¹⁸⁵ Accordingt ot he Gospel of Mark: "Then ac loud overshadowed them, and from the cloudt herec ame av oice, 'This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!'"¹⁸⁶ And in John: "No one has ever seen God.I ti sG od the onlyS on, who is close to the Father'sh eart,w ho has made him known".¹⁸⁷ And, moreover: "The Father loves the Son and has placed all thingsi nh is hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endureG od'sw rath".¹⁸⁸ Accordingt oJ ohn, Jesus told the Jews that the Father teachest he Son, who does as he does: "The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing;a nd he will show him greater works than these, so that youwill be astonished. Indeed, just as the Father raises  On conflicts in the canon see, e. g., Theophilos (2013).The First Council of Nicaea stated that "Christus is the onlyb egotten Son of God, born of the Father beforea ll ages […]".I tr ejected Arianism as ah eresy (and established the dogma that Jesus' naturei si dentical to that of God the father (homoousios), i. e., consubstantial. Documents of the Christian Church,S elected and Edited by Henry Bettenson, OxfordU niversity Press, 1963, pp. 36 -37.The western Church had added the word filioque ("and [from] the Son"): "We believei nt he HolyS pirit,t he Lord, the givero fl ife, whop roceeds fromt he Father and the Son…" The Byzantine Church regarded this addition "as illicit and possiblyheretical".PopeBenedict XVIwrote that the word homoousios was "the onlyphilosophical term that was incorporated intothe creed" (Pope Benedict XVI 2007,p .3 20).  Romans 1:1-4; Philippians 2:5 -11;C olossians 1:15 -20.P liny the Younger (c. 61-113) testified that he heard Christian congregations singing psalms about Jesus as ag od: carmenque Christo quasi deo diceresecum inuicem" (they wereinthe habitofmeetingbeforedawnonastated dayand singingalternatelyahymn to Christ as to ag od" trans. J. Lightfoot.See R. P. Martin (1964). See also Dunn (2010).  This subject,o nw hich there is avast literature, is beyond the purviewo ft his book.  Colossians1 :15.  Mark 9:7-24.Onthe use of "son of God" in John, see Dunn (2015,p.77). Also see Hurtado (2005); Hengel (1976); Allen et al. (2019); Kofsky and Ruzer (2018, p. 13 -34).  John 1:18.  John 3:35 -36.I nO de 3, attributed to Solomon: "Ih aveb een united to Him, because the lover found the Beloved, because Il oveH im that is the Son, Is hall become as on" (trans. James Charlesworth 1985, p. 735).
Chapter Two: Solomona nd Jesus-TwoS ons of God, and of David? the dead and givest hem life,s oa lso the Son givesl ife to whomever he wishes".¹⁸⁹ And, furthermore: "Forj ust as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; and he has givenh im authority to execute judgment,because he is the Son of Man".¹⁹⁰ Peter,addressing the skeptics, exclaims: "Forw ed id not follow cleverlyd evised myths when we made known to yout he power and comingo fo ur LordJ esus Christ,b ut we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.F or he receivedh onor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyedt oh im by the Majestic Glory, saying, 'This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom Ia mw ell pleased'".¹⁹¹ Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, wrote in his epistle De decretis thatt he word "son" possessed two meaningsi nt he holys criptures:s onship by adoptiona nd grace applied to anyw ho adhered to God'sc ommandments, while the second sense is that of "natural sons".¹⁹² In anycase, Athanasius wrote, it is impossible to ascribe ah uman nature to God.¹⁹³ Jesuswas also haileda sa"son of God" for his ability to work miracles and exorcise demons. Afterh ew alked on water and calmed as torm, "Andt hosei n the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Trulyy ou are the Son of God'".¹⁹⁴ He was further perceivedasthe divine son by men under an evil spell, one of whom called out to him, saying: "What have yout od ow ith me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?Iadjureyou by God, do not torment me".¹⁹⁵ On yetanother occasion, Jesus met twomen possessed by devils; they called to him: "What have youtodowith us, Son of God?H avey ou come here to torment us before the time?"¹⁹⁶ The demons Jesus exorcised likewise acknowledgedh im: "Youa re the Son of God!"¹⁹⁷ The claim of divine paternity led the JewishHighPriest in Jerusalem to state that  John 5:20 -21.  John 5:26 -27.  2P eter 1:16 -17.L uther maintained that there can be no redemption without faith in Jesus, son of God, and that Mary was trulythe mother of God and yetremained avirgin (theotokos). As to Solomon, God does call him his son, but he will be his father,but this promise is dependent on the condition that he remain pious.Luther (2015,p.73). It is worth noticingthat the question herei sn ot one of fatherhood, but rather of ap romise to ag rown man.  Young( 2002,p .3 1).  Young ( 2002,p p. 30 -36). In the Epistle to Diognetus (c.1300?) by unknown Greek writer, Jesus is referred to as "son" and "child" of God. God sent him to reveal himself as man or the Designer and Maker of universe. See Lienhard( 1970 Jesus "ought to die because he has claimedtobethe Son of God".¹⁹⁸ Paul,meanwhile, expanded on the notion of paternity: "for in Christ Jesus youa re all children of God through faith".¹⁹⁹ In place of the Torahc ame faith in the son, who was sent by God "in order to redeem those who wereu nder the law, so that we might receive adoption as children".²⁰⁰

Paganp olemic
"Pagan" philosophers of the time argued that Christianity'sc laim regarding Jesus' sonship referred to corporeal paternity.N or did they have reason to wonder at such aclaim, since the notion of divine paternity of corporeal persons was not alient op agan culturea nd mayb ef ound in far earlier Assyrian prophecies.²⁰¹ In TheT rue Word, Celsus derided not the idea of Jesus' divine paternity but rather the "foolish quarrel" between Christians and Jews about the identity of the Messiah. He had aJ ewishc haracter voice the assertion that the Christian claim of virgin birth was hardly different than the various tales in Greek mythologyofwomen who gave birth to Zeus' offspring.Jesus, then, was but one of many followed by disciples who collected "am eanso fl ivelihoodi nad isgraceful and importune way",²⁰² and went on asking "Could not the Great God, who had alreadysent twoangels on your account,His ownson, at the very place?" Familiar with the Bible, he quoted Moses in Deuteronomy4 :35: "To youi tw as shown so that youwould acknowledge that the LordisGod; there is no other besides him", as well as in 6:4: "The Lordisour God, the Lordalone".Two hundred years later  John 19:7.  Galatians 3:26.  Galatians 4:5. On the Jewish background to the terms "son of God" and "sons of God" in Paul and their meanings,s ee Byrne (1979).H ere "sonship" is am etaphor.  See Parpola (1997, pp. XXXVI-XLIV).  Origen (1965, p. 65); Celsus (1987, pp. 57-59); Wilken (1979,pp. 117-134);and Rokeah (1982, pp. 16 -19). Mythological stories mayhavepreparedthe ground for the acceptanceofthe story of Jesus' birth by the pagans,who did not reject that type of narrative as Alexander the Great did (whenaresident of Thebes tried to gain mercy for the city by sayingthat the kingwas ason of the godl ikeH ercules and Dionysus,s ons of Zeus,A lexander replied, "Do youb elievey ou can deceiveA lexander by concocting am yth?" Stoneman (1991,pp. 80 -83). Plutarch recorded that Alexander wrotet oh is mother about am eetingi nE gypt with ap riest of the godA mun, who called him Op aidion (son of the god), and afterwards the goda ddressed him as Op ai Dios (O Son of Zeus;P lut. Alex. 27.5). In aH ebrewv ersion of the book, Alexander was the son of the Egyptian queen Cleopatra and Amun-Dionysus(Dan 1969, p. 130) AfragmentofApollolonius of Tyana,cited in "The Life of PythagorasIIPorphyry",describesPythagorasasthe son of Apollo and of Pythais, "most beautiful of the Samians".

Pagan polemic
the RomanEmperor Julian would write in asimilar vein that "Moses taught that there was onlyo ne God,b ut thath eh ad manys ons who divided the nations among themselves";n othing in the words of the Prophets,h em aintained, suggested that Jesus was "the onlyson of God" or "the first born of all creation",²⁰³ In his Adversus Christianos (Against the Christians), Porphyry,aNeoplatonic philosopher and scholarw ho slightlyp redated Julian, mused as follows: What use is the Son of God for us whohavebecome flesh on earth?And whywas he placed on the cross,a nd had to suffer,a nd was punished with another penalty?A nd whati st he didactic purpose of the cross?W hy did the Son of God, Christ,l eave the bodyafter abrief time? And since he is not capableo fs uffering, how did he come under suffering?²⁰⁴ In addition, in the first centuries of the common era, the Church Fathers found themselvesc onfronting not onlyp agan philosophers but also-and primarilyheretical movements within Christianityi tself. In opposition to the Arian "heresy",a ccordingt oA rius of Alexandria (c. 256-336), Jesus' divinity stems from the divinity with which the Creator,w ho was not himself created, endowed him. This claim is based on, among otherthings, Acts 2:36: "know with certainty that God has made him bothLordand Messiah, this Jesuswhom youcrucified".
The proselytep riest Nestor also offered outspoken critiques, inquiring why Christians weren ot ashamedt oc laim that Jesus had spent nine months in a place as repugnant as the womb: "AndG od said to Isaiah[ 66:1]…'What is the place that can contain Me, when the heaveni sM yi sm yt hrone and the earth is My footstool, so which place can contain Me.' The Lordsaysnohouse can contain Him, and yous ay thatawoman carried him in her womb, in confinement and in the darkness of menstrual blood, in the place of filth…."²⁰⁵ The Sages' polemic Apparently, Jews would have objected the idea of God'sp aternity.²⁰⁶ When the author of the pseudo-Danielic fragment found in Qumran²⁰⁷ wrotet hat "He shall be called son of God, and they shall designateh im son of the Most High", he certainlymeant it to be understood as ametaphor.²⁰⁸ Moreover,inthe Hebrew Bible, as well as in the literatureofthe Sages, God's "paternity" relates primarily to the entire Jewish people. When Simeon ben Shetaḥ,h ead of the Pharisees, is told that Honi the Circle-Drawer appealed to God saying: "Master of the Universe, Thychildren have turned to me because [they believe] me to be amemberofThy house.Iswear by Thygreat name that Iwill not movefrom here until Thou hast mercyU pon Thychildren",ben Shetah replies forgivingly: "Were it not that you are Honi Iwould have placed youunder the ban… But what shall Idounto you who actest petulantlyb efore the Omnipresent and He grants your desire, as a son who acts petulantlyb efore his father?"²⁰⁹ According to R. Akiva, of the second century C.E., "Beloved are the Jews that they are called sons to God; an extra loveismade known to them that they are called sons to God, as it was said: 'You are children of the Lordy our God'" (Deuteronomy1 4:1).²¹⁰ In prayer,A kiva turned to "our father,o ur king".²¹¹ Jews furthermore had the examples of Abba Hilkia and Ḥanina ben Dosa, who spoke of their relationships with God as thatofason with his father.²¹² Yet, in contrast, we have the words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 4:8: "the case of solitary individuals,without sons or brothers". Jewisht heologyd id not reject the anthropomorphism of God, or more precisely the idea thatt he boundaries between anthropomorphization, materialization, and metaphor are blurred, and that God exists not alone but rather accompanied by mythological figures,s uch as Enoch and Metatron.²¹³ Such supernaturale ntities mayh aveb een the inspiration for the Christian depiction of Jesus as supernatural. Unliket hem, however,J esusw as depicted as human-as am an born of aw oman, living an earthlyl ife rather than rising from mythologyorthe distant past.Itwas consequentlynecessary for Christians both to explain how Jesus could be ason of God and to elucidatethe Christological polemic about his divine nature. The Sages contended over the idea of this duality with heretics (whom they called minim (heretics)) while the Church itself  4Q246[ 4QpsDan d ]1 :8 -9.  Vermes (1987, p. 275).  Ta'anit 3:8  Avot 3:18.  Ta'anit 25b. In the literature of the Sages, "the son" is often not asingular but apluralreference to the people of Israel. Jewish prayer addresses "our father who art in heaven"-afather to the entirep eople of Israel. See Goshen-Gottstein (1987). did not address it,n or did it use the argument that Jesus'" sonship" was confirmed by the Jewish( mythic) eschatological literaturea bout 'lesser gods' existing alongside God.However,inresponse to Christianity'sclaims and to the fact it posited the actual "corporeality" of God's "son" rather than employing it as a metaphor,t he Sages-particularlyi nt he JerusalemT almud-denigrated the Christian story of Jesus' birth, the attribution of divine sonship to am an, and the perception of Jesusa samanifestation of God".T hus, when one of the minim asked R. Simlai²¹⁴ (a second-generation Palestinian Amora of the late third or earlyfourth century) how manygods had createdthe world, he encouraged the heretic to read Psalm 149:9: "The LordofHosts,itisnot written but 'the Lordo fH osts is the God of all' and when the HolyO ne Blessed be He created Man in His imagea nd His figure, the angels erred, thinking that he was like God, so the HolyO ne Blessed be He put man to sleep 'so that they all would know that he is man'".²¹⁵ In PesiktaR abbati (a collection of Aggadic midrashim recorded in Palestine between the fifth and ninth centuries),²¹⁶ R. Ḥiyya bar Abba (a Babylonian Amora who spent most of his life in Palestinea round the same period as R. Simlai) is said to have taught "If the whore'ss on should sayt oy ou, 'They are two different gods',r eplyt oh im, Scriptured oes not say 'The gods have spoken … face to face' but TheL ord has spoken with you face after face".²¹⁷ The reference here is to Deuteronomy5 :4-"The Lords poke with youface to face at the mountain, out of the fire"-where the grammatical subject is clearly singular.InExodus Rabbah 29:5,bar Abba employed Isaiah 44:6 ("Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lordo fh osts: Ia mt he first and Iamthe last; besides me thereisnogod")toaddress the question without explicitlyr eferring to Christology: "Ia mt he Lordt hy God, thus said R. Abahu: An example would be an earthlyking,who rules and has afather,brother,a nd son. God says: 'Ia mt he last' [which means] Ih aven ob rother.A nd besides me there is no God' [which means] that Ihavenoson".²¹⁸ ElsewhereRabbi Abahu is said to have taught that "If man says 'IamGod',helies; if he says 'Iam the Son of Man' he shallrue it; Iwill go to heaven' he saith, but shall not perform it".²¹⁹  y.Berakhot 9:11 2d.  Genesis Rabbah 8:9, ed. Theodor-Albeck (1936,p .6 2).  The collection was sealed around the ninth century;i tw ould appear in print in Prague in 1653.  Pesikta Rabbati (1968, 1:422).  Exodus Rabbah 29,5 ,t rans. S. M. Lehrman.  y.Ta'anit 2:16 5b.
In contrast,the Sages makes no reference to Solomon as ac orporeal son of God, nor as amessiah; certainly, he does not "ascend to the heavens".Nowhere do they claim that Solomon is God'so nlyson, and his role in Jewish polemic is not that of ac ounter-example to Jesus as the 'true son' of God;i nstead, he is used to repudiatethoroughly the concept of sonship. Solomon is accused of having failed to express himself with sufficient clarity upon this point: "R. Aḥa[ a fourth-century Amora]s aid: God was angry with Solomonw hen he uttered the aboveverse. He said to him: 'Whydoyou express athing that concerns the sanctification of My Name by an obscure allusion, [when yous ay] 'and meddle not with them that are giventochange'?Thereupon immediatelySolomon expressed it more clearly [as follows:] There is one that is alone, and he hath not as econd; yea, he hath neither son nor brother (Eccl. 4:8); 'He hath neither son nor brother', but HEAR,OISRAEL: THE LORD [[IS]] OUR GOD,THE LORD IS ONE".²²⁰

Christian polemic
Unlikethe Sages, Christianity engaged, from its inception, in an intensive polemic that is revealing of the extent to which the question of the "dual sonship" of Jesusa nd Solomon troubled Christian apologists.
 Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:33,S oncino transl. Deut.6 2-63. According to am edieval midrash attributed to R. Eliezer Hakapar,aTanna whol ived at the turn of the third century: "God gave strengtht oh is [Balaam's] voices ot hat it went from the one end of the world to the other,b ecause he lookedf orth and beheld the nations that bow down to the sun and moon and stars,a nd to wood and stone, and he looked forth and sawt hat there was am an, born of woman, whos hould rise up and seek to make himself God, and to cause the whole world to go astray. Therefore, God gave power to the voiceo fB alaam that all the peoples of the world might hear,and thus he spake: 'Give heed that ye go not astrayafter that man, for its written 'God is not aman that he should lie'.And if he says that he is God, he is aliar;and he will deceivea nd sayt hat he departed and cometh again at the end. He saith and he shall not perform. See what he tooktohis parable and said: 'Alas,when God doeth this'.Balaam said, alas, whos hall live-of whatn ation which hearth that man whom ade himself God". Yalkut Shimoni Numeri §7 65,e d. A. Hyman, Jerusalem 1986,485 [Salonica sec. 725o nN um. 23:7,a ccording to Midrash Yelammedenu Aaron(Adolph) Jellinek (1873,pp. 207-208). Quran 4:171(Women) states: "The Messiah, Jesus,the son of Mary,was but amessengerofAllah… So believeinAllah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three";desist-it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. ExaltedisHeabovehavingason. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth".Q uran 19:35( " Mary")s tates: "It is not [befitting] for Allah to take as on; exaltedi s He!" These twov erses arei nscribed on the inner octoganal face of the Dome of the Rock. See Bowersock( 2017,p p. 140 -159).

Christian polemic
Jesus' sonship is discussed at length in Justin Martyr'ssecond-centuryapologia Dialogue with Trypho. Trypho, whom Justin describes as aJ ewish refugee from the Jewish wara gainst the Romans and as learned in Greek philosophy, negates the idea of divine fatherhood. Justin then invokes Solomon as ac ounter-witness, having him explain that the "king of glory" in Psalm 24:1 -10 refers to Christ because he rose from the dead, went up to heaven, and sat at the right hand of the father (Psalm 110:1). Christ was the "son of God",descended through virgin birth from the genos of Abraham and the tribe of Judaha nd David²²¹;h e " submitted to become incarnate, and be born of this virgin"Justin further cites the prophet Nathani n2Samuel 7:14 -15,i nterpreting "Iw ill be his father,a nd he shallb em ys on" as referringt oJ esus: "Christ is the Lord, and God the Son, that in times gone by appeared by his power as man and angel, …"²²² In his First Apology,a ddressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, Justin'sa im was to provet hat the Christians weren either atheists nor rebellinga gainst the monarchy. To do so, he employed ad ual strategy. On the one hand, he argued that the idea that Jesus was the first begottenson of God the Father,and not conceivedasthe resultofsexual relations,was hardlynovel or particularlydifferent from the descriptions of several births in Greek mythology. Furthermore, even if Jesushad been born entirely "by common generation",hewas still worthyofhis divinesonship because of his great wisdom. On the other hand, Justin presented the Emperor with as eries of "testimonies" from the Bible to persuade him that Jesusw as indeed the "son of the living God, God himself".H eq uoted from, among others, Psalm2 :7: "youa re my son; todayIh aveb egotten you",²²³ on the naïvea ssumption that the pagan Emperoro fR ome acknowledgedt he authority of the Jewish holys criptures.
Origen (c. 185 -254), for his part,r ejected totallyS olomon'ss tatus as God's "son," arguingt hat Jews could not have known the "Father" for therec annot be a "Father" without the existenceofa"son".Lactantius (c. 240-c.325), basing his interpretation on the Epistle to the Hebrews,wrotethat the divine messagein 2S amuel 7:7-13: "Iw ill raise up your offspringa fter you[ … ]H es hall build a house for my name, and Iw ill establish the throne of his kingdom forever", could not have referred to Solomon, as his reign was not eternal; Solomon was the son of David, not of God.²²⁴ Eusebius of Caesarea (c.260-c.339) similarly maintained that Solomon could not be the son of God since he was the son of a  Justin Martyr (2003,p p. 176 -177, 193 -195).S ee also Barnard( 1997).  Justin Martyr (2003,p .193 human.²²⁵ Origen wrote that Solomon failed to attain an eternal throne because he succumbed to the passions of the flesh and to idolatry²²⁶;a nd accordingt o Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem (313 -386), Jesus was "[God's] onlyb egotten Son, our JesusC hrist,b yw hom He madea ll thingsv isible and invisible." He is not "an adopted but anaturallyonlybegotten son, having no brother".²²⁷ Augustine invoked Solomon himself as ah arbinger of sorts: "Solomon himself in his ownp erson merelygaven otice of the comingo fC hrist,byaforeshadowing of the future […]i nS olomon there is ak ind of shadowy sketch, while in Christ the reality itself is presented to us".S olomonw as "the son of David, not the Son of God",²²⁸ and all prophecies of the futurew eref ulfilled in Christ.
TheDialogue of Timothyand Aquila²²⁹ describes a "dispute" between aChristian namedT imothya nd aJ ew called Aquila in which the Christian, naturally, has the upperh and and Aquila ultimatelyi sb aptized. Among other things, their dispute revolves around the correct interpretation of Psalm2 :7 ("[…]I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, 'Youa re my son; todayI have begotten you'"), of Nathan'sw ords to David in 2S amuel7 ,a nd of the prophecies of Isaiah. Timothyinterprets these as referring to Jesus, and to establish the claim that the intended referencei sn ot to Solomon, he emphasizes the distinction between Jesusa nd Solomon,r emindingh is Jewish interlocutor that Solomon succumbed to the temptations of demons while Jesus, in turn, overpowered thema nd controlled them for all eternity,a nd thus demonstrated that he was "greater than Solomon".Tob olsterh is argument,Timothycited Solomon himself, or at least atext attributed to him-the pseudo-epigraphical Tes-tamentofSolomon,which waswritteninEgypt between the first and fourth centuries C.E. and declares the supremacyo fJ esus. Timothyd id not denyt hat God regarded Solomon as ab eloved son (Jedidiah), but he argued that God had revoked his lovef or this wayward "son" as punishment for not having adhered to his commandments; the true son of God was thereforeJ esus. Aquila the Jew responds: "Then how do all the scriptures wish to call this Jesus the Son of  Quaestiones Evangelicae 5.2.  Origen (1921,p .192).  See Cyril (1995,x i). Jesus had twof athers: "one David, according to the flesh, and one, God".A sason of David, He is subject to time but as son accordingt ot he Godhead, He is not subject to time nor to place.  Augustine (1984,X VIII:8). And see the detailed discussioni nContraF austum (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean),where he writes that Christ is "the true and truthful Son of God and the true and truthful Son of David" (Augustine 1984,p .7 35).  See Pastis (1994). In Pastis' view,the Jews and Judaism function as heuristic devicesinthe Christian catechesis.

Christian polemic
David, but also in your Gospels we find the blind men cryingout to him and also the Canaanite woman saying 'OS on of David'".²³⁰ To this Timothyr eplies that the evil spirits thatw eree xpelled called out: "What have yout od ow ith us, Son of God?"²³¹ Aquila is not satisfied, and Timothya dds that Jesusi ss aid to be the son of David because it wasn ecessary "for the thingsw ritten in the lawand the prophecies to be fulfilled".²³² HenceDavid'sdescription as the father of Jesus and, moreover,asthe harbinger of the latter'sappearance and his status as the Messiah.²³³ The question of Jesus' sonship persisted in Christian polemics even after Christianityb ecame ascendant,byw hich point the three-hundred-year long debate with the pagans had drawnt oa ne nd and Judaism was morea ni magined rival than ar eal one. Nonetheless, Augustine, for example, felt compelled to remark that "the Jews realize that the son promised, as they read in this passageto King David, was not Solomon; but so amazingistheirblindnessthat they profess their hope for another even when the promised Son has clearlym anifested".²³⁴ Hugh of St.Victor (d. 1149), for his part,inquired how the words in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews could refer to Jesusifthe sourceofthe quote in question was 2S amuel 7:14.H econcluded that the literal reference was to Solomon, while the hidden, more mystical reference was to Jesus.²³⁵ Another example was AlfonsoT ostado Ribera, Bishop of Avila(1400 -1455), who assertedthat Solomon was "an adoptive son. Christ wasason by nature".²³⁶ Luther wrote: "And although God does call Solomon his son […]a nd says that he willbeh is father, this promise is dependent on the condition thatSolomon will remainpious […]It is not at all rare that God calls his saints, as well as the angels, his children. But the son mentioned in 2Samuel 7:14 is adifferent and special son who will retain the kingdom unconditionallya nd be hindered by no sin".²³⁷

Medieval JewishP olemic
In the Middle Ages, the Jewishr esponsetothese arguments was not intended to defend the depiction of Solomon as the chosen son of the "Father," i. e., God, but rather to deride the sacrilegious Christian belief in the virgin birth and in Jesus as "son of God".N either in rabbinical literature nor in the Jewish "disputation" literaturef rom the twelfth century onwards wasa ny attempt made to disguise the out-and-out rejectionofChristian dogma. Yet, in Jewish polemical literature, Solomon is not pitted against Jesusi nt his context.
In the Kuzari,J udah Halevi wrote thatt he first man (Adam) was created a whole, perfect creature; hence, "We call him God'ss on, and we call all those who werel ike him alsos ons of God".²³⁸ In his Bitul Iqqarei Dath a-Notzrim [A Refutation of the Principles of Christianity], Ḥasdai Crescas (c.1340 -1410), aphilosopher and teacher of Jewish law, pointed out contradictions and illogic in ten principles of the Christian faith and in Jesus' biography, includingt he concepts of the Trinity and of Jesus as ason of God. To Jesus' declaration that "My teaching is not mine but his who sent me",²³⁹ Crescas responded by asking "Is the messenger not equal to he who sent him?" He also wondered whyi tw as necessary for Jesust ot urn to his Father for aid if he himself werep ossessed of the same divine powers.Crescas claimed furthermore that verse 4:6inPaul'sEpistle to the Ephesians-"one God and Father of all, who is abovea ll and through all and in all"-actuallyreiterates the Jewish belief, expressed in Deuteronomy4 :39 that "the Lordi sG od in heavena bovea nd on the earth beneath; therei sn o other".²⁴⁰ In otherw ords, God was "Father of all, and Father to no other god".
Advancingadifferent argument in the summary to his commentary on Psalm 72, the grammariana nd biblical exegete R. David Kimhi, also known by the acronym Radak (1160 -1235), overturned Christian claims: peace did not predominate duringJ esus' lifetime, sinners and evil men did not vanish from the land, Jesusdid not reign over all the people. As for Jesus' divinity,hewondered how it could be possible to pray that aman live,for there was no reason to pray for adivine being'slife; "[…]ifthey (the Christians) said: the son will pray to the father for all who believei nt he son, to whom will he pray?F or he is the son of God",a nd later, "if you[ Christians] say: the son will pray to the father for the  Kuzari 1:95.  John 7:16.  R. Ḥasdai Crescas, Sefer Bittul Iqqarei ha-Notzrim,trans. into Hebrew from Catalan in 1451 by Joseph BenS hem Tov, ed. Daniel J. Lasker (1990). Therew eres everal Church Fathers who claimed the Sages knew of the triune natureo fG od but chose to hide that knowledgef rom the masses.R .H asdai citesa sa ne xample Hippolytus, Adversus haereses,100,n .9 7. sake of his believers,towhat purpose willhepray? Is not the son himself meant to be God?"²⁴¹ Similarly,Leone Modena (JudahAryeh), in his Clipeus et Gladius [Swordand Shield], assertedt hati fG od had wished to appear in the flesh, he would have done so by means othert han ah uman birth-just as he created Adam and Eveb yo ther methods. He went on to perform al inguistic analysis:t he Hebrew root yod-lamed-dalet ( ‫ָי‬ ‫ַל‬ ‫ד‬ -"begat")a ctuallym eant yatzar ( ‫ָי‬ ‫ַצ‬ ‫ר‬ -"created"); in other words, God created Solomon but did not physicallyb eget him. Furthermore, the Hebrew wordf or God, Elohim,w as grammaticallys ingular despite seeming to possess ap lurals uffix, and in those places wherem ultiple names of God appear ("the LordG od of hosts, the God of Israel")n oa llusion exists to at rinity.M odena repeated the main arguments of Nestor the Priest,n amely that if God had desired as on, he surely would not have resorted to the unclean vehicle of the femalew omb but would have created him in purity as he did the angels or Eve. He also pointed out the contradictions in Matthew and Luke: if Jesusw as not the son of Joseph, then perforceh ew as not of the seed of David. He further denied that the words in the Epistle to the Hebrews (which he attributed to Paul) refer to Jesus.²⁴² The Dominican friar Raimundus Martini responded to such arguments in a book titled Capistrum Iudaeorum,written around 1267.T oa nswer the claim, for example, that Jesus did not "have dominion from sea to sea, and from the Rivert ot he ends of the earth",²⁴³ he quoted from the Mekhilta de Rabbi Yish-mael²⁴⁴ on Exodus 12:6 that "am an'sa gent is like the man himself",a nd from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 99b, that "he who causes his neighbour to fulfil ap recept,i sr egarded by Scripture as though he had done it himself". Jesus' disciples and apostles fulfilled the psalmic prophecya nd disseminated Christianity "from the great sea in the south, wheret he Cushites live,t ot he great seat oo ur north".²⁴⁵ Medieval Jewish biblical commentators responded to the Christian allegorization of the Bible not with acounter-allegorization of their own but rather with aliteralinterpretation. In other words, they disputed what they perceivedasthe distortion of biblical sources by the Christian camp²⁴⁶ and the lack of historical truth in Christology.I ti sp articularlyn oteworthyt hat they did not cite Nathan's prophesy to David as proof that Solomon was as on of God; this was because they did not attribute sonship to Solomon and because such aclaim might indirectlyhavebolstered the Christian claim of Jesus' sonship. Ishould mention here that Islam,too, regarded the "corporealization" of the term ben (son) as evidence of Christianity's "polytheistic" nature and as ad enial of the monotheistic principle. The Quran itself addresses the matter;i nQ uran 19,w ef ind: "Such was Jesus, son of Mary:( this is) as tatement of the truth concerning which they doubt.I tb efitteth not (the Majesty of)A llah that He should takeu nto Himself as on".God ordered the birth of Jesus but surelyw as not his parent.²⁴⁷ The Broken Dynasty: Solomon and Jesus-two sonso f David? ²⁴⁸ Jesus' divine sonship is atheological dogma,while his sonship in the genealogical sense is ah istorical matter.²⁴⁹ The latter conception poses an inherent difficulty since the New Testament describes Jesusasadescendant of David. The belief in a "Messiah born of David",made David-rather thanSolomon-the fitting candidate to be Jesus'" father accordingt ot he flesh".²⁵⁰ Solomon is mentioned onlyafew times in the New Testament: (a) in the story about the Queen of Sheba'sv isit to "ag reater than Solomon";( b) in Jesus' parable on humility: "Consider the lilies, how they grow:t hey neither toil nor spin; yetItell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these"²⁵¹;( c) in the Gospel of John relatingt hat several men, amid a crowdi nt he courtyard of the Temple, once called out that the Messiah would  On this matter,s ee Chapter Three.  Quran 19:34 -35 ("Mary"). See also Parrinder (2013,p p. 126 -132).  Manys cholars have dealtw ith this subject.S ee, inter alia,C harlesworth (1995); Hanig (1993);Fisher (1986);Green (1982);Burger(1970);Oeming(2007); Trotter (1968, pp. 82-97);Chilton( 1982);B ock( 1991);and Perkins (1988).  Therem ay have been groups within earlyC hristianityt hat were skeptical of David'sm essianic status.S ee Ruzer (2007).  Romans 1:1-4.  Luke 12:27.
The BrokenD ynasty: Solomona nd Jesus-two sons of David? rise from the seed of David and out of Bethlehem but,s ince Jesus was from the Galilee, ac ontroversy then brokeo ut.²⁵² Solomon'sm ost important appearance is in Matthew'sg enealogyo fJ esus, which begins with Abraham and continues on to David, Solomon,and their descendants.²⁵³ This is in contrasttothe Gospel of Luke, whereSolomonisabsent from Joseph'sfamilytree and Jesus is the only "son of David" and heir to David'sm essianic role. In Luke,f or example, the angel Gabriel informs Mary: "Do not be afraid,M ary,f or youh avef ound favor with God. And now,y ou will conceive in your womb and bear as on, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great,a nd will be called the Son of the Most High, and the LordG od will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever,a nd of his kingdom therew ill be no end".²⁵⁴ Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark relates that when Jesus arrivedinJerusalem astride ad onkey,t hose following him called out: "Blessedi st he comingk ingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!"²⁵⁵ The scene is described similarlyi nM atthew: "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessedi st he one who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest heaven!"²⁵⁶ Upon reachingt he courtyard of the Temple, Jesus is again receiveda st he "son of David".²⁵⁷ Matthew relates that Jesus himself asked the Pharisees, "Whatd o yout hink of the Messiah?W hoses on is he?" To which their replyw as "The son of David".²⁵⁸ "How is it then," Jesus continued in Matthew'st elling, "that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying, 'The Lords aid to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand,u ntil Ip ut your enemies under your feet"'?I fD avid thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?" No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that dayd id anyone dare to ask him anym ore questions".²⁵⁹ In other words, the Gospels present David as the father of Jesus in his earthly incarnation as a "son of man",l eaving no role for Solomon.²⁶⁰  John 7:40 -44.Yet see in the same Gospel: "the scripturesaid that Christ came of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem" (7:42).  Matthew 1:1-16.See Eusebius polemic against the "alleged discrepancyinthe gospels as to Christ'sg enealogy" in TheH istoryo ft he Church (Eusebius,1989,p p. 20 -22  Augustine explainst hat the Pharisees wereu nable to replyb ecause they did not understand that Jesus appeared before them as am an whiler emainingh idden from them as the Thus, Jesus is both "son of God" and "son of David. As "son of David" he is the mortal, earthlyJesus, while as "son of God" he is atemporal and eternal. According to Luke, Jesusi st ypologicallyt he "son of God" because he is the true "son of David" (in other words, the Messiah)²⁶¹: "When he had removed him [King Saul], he made David their king.I nh is testimonya bout him he said 'I have found David, son of Jesse, to be am an after my heart,who will carry out all my wishes'.O ft his man'sp osterity God has brought to Israel aS avior, Jesus, as he promised".²⁶² Anda gain: "Our father David," who was ap rophet, had foretold the resurrection of the Messiah; since Daviddid not himself ascend to the heavens, the words in Psalm1 10:1-"The Lords ayst om yl ord, 'Sit at my right hand until Im ake your enemies your footstool'"-must be intended for Jesus, the Lorda nd Messiah.²⁶³ Further,P aul'sE pistle to the Romans refers to the gospel concerning his (God's) who descended from David Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David accordingt ot he flesh"²⁶⁴;a nd Timothyi st old: "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of Davidw as raised from the dead".²⁶⁵ David, moreover,e xemplified an ideal king and at the same time heraldedt he coming of Jesusa nd his teachings: "Friends, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the HolyS piritt hrough David foretold concerning Judas, who became ag uide for those who arrested Jesus".²⁶⁶ When Peter spoke to the inhabitants of Jerusalem on the festival of Pentecost,h ea ssured themt hat "ancestor David […]b oth died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day" and that God had resurrected Jesus, the Messiah: "Since he was aprophet,heknew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying, 'He wasnot abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption'.This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. Being thereforee xalted at the right hand of God, and having receivedf rom the Father the promise of the HolyS pirit,h eh as poured out this that youb oth see and hear".²⁶⁷ son of God-in other words,the mystery that Jesus was both son and lordofDavid, and that one might be both man and God. Sermon XLI.  Ruzer ( In addition, in the Book of Revelation, Jesus is depicted as alion: "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered",²⁶⁸ and in PsalmsofSolomon,S olomon undergoes at ransfiguration into Jesus: Lord, you chose David to be king over Israel And swore to him about his descendants forever that his kingdom should not fail beforey ou. See, Lord,a nd raise up for them their king As on of David, to rule over your servant Israel ²⁶⁹ This is afulfillment of Amos' prophecy: "On that dayIwill raise up the booth of David that is fallen,and repair its breaches,and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old".²⁷⁰ The Blessing of Jacob,atext preserved in the Dead Sea scrolls,draws asimilar connection between David and the Messiah: "Whenever Israel rules there shall [not] fail to be ad escendant of David upon the throne. Fort he ruler's staff is the Covenanto fk ingship [and the clans] of Israela re feet until the Messiah of Righteousness comes, the Branch of David. Fort oh im and to his seed was granted the covenant of kingship over his people for everlasting generations […]".²⁷¹ David was assigned an additional role as the herald of the comingofJ esus, as seen in Psalm72 -"Give the king your justice, OGod,and your righteousness to aking'sson. Mayhejudge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice"-and in other psalms referringtothe son of David and depicting his eternal reign on earth. Psalm 110:1 ("The Lordsaystom ylord, 'Sit at my right hand until Im ake your enemies your footstool'")i ss een in this way: "Of this man's posterity God has brought to Israel aSavior,Jesus, as he promised".Justin Martyr asserted that Psalm72could not have referred to Solomon, since the future it described was never fulfilledd uringh is lifetime: "[…]t hat none of these things mentioned in the Psalm happened to him is evident.F or neither did all kings worship him; nor did he reign to the ends of the earth; nor did his enemies, falling before him, lick to dust".Onthe contrary,Solomon flouted God'scommandments, violatedt he covenant,took pride in his wealth, and committed grievous sins of the kind that "Gentiles who know God, the Maker of all thingst hrough Jesusthe crucified, do not venture to do, but abide every torture and vengeance  Revelation 5:5.  Psalms of Solomon,P salm 17.Charlesworth (1985, pp. 189 -197).  Amos 9:11.  4QPBless.i nV ermes (1987, p. 261). even to extremityo fd eath, rather than worship idols, or eat meat offered to idols".I nc ontrast, Jesus was the "king of glory", "the eternal king" foreseen in the psalm, whose kingdom spread over the entire globe and would endure for all eternity.²⁷² Others took asimilar approach. Origen similarlyfound thatPsalm72referred to the "true Solomon"-thatis, to Jesus-while Solomon himself merelysymbolized the vacuity thatderivesf rom ostentatious wealth, rather than humility and the supremacyo ft he soul over the body. AndT ertullian, in his Divinae institutiones, wrotet hatN athant he Prophet'sp rophecy was realized not in Solomon, whose kingdom failed to endureeventhough he was the son of David, but rather in Jesus. Eusebius toodeclaredthat Psalm 72 and the promise in 2Samuelcould not refertoSolomon,²⁷³ while, similar to Origen, awork attributed to Athanasius (Expositiones in Psalmos)described Jesusasthe "true Solomon" (Psalm 72:1). Regarding Psalm 45:6 -7, Augustine wrote: "No one, however slow of wit,could fail to recognize in this passaget he Christ whom we proclaim and in whom we believe, when he hears of 'God, whose throne is for ever and ever',and to recognize God'sanointed, to be understood as God'sanoints-not with visibleoil but with the spiritual and intelligible chrism".²⁷⁴ According to Augustine, Nathan's prophesy²⁷⁵ refers to Jesus-"We mayb es ure that 'the blessing of the words' on David'sl ine is not something to be hoped for al imited period, like that which was seen in the days of Solomon;i ti ss omething to be expectedt ol ast for all eternity"²⁷⁶-while Psalms 45,7 2, 89,a nd 110 show that "it is in Christ that we see the fulfillment of these words".²⁷⁷ Hence, "the Jews realize that the son promised, as they read in this page, to King David, was not Solomon; but so amazing is their blindness thattheygoontoprofess their hope for another,e venw hen the promised son has been so clearlym anifested".²⁷⁸ It waso nly owing to Christ that the house of David was "destinedt ob ecome eternal".²⁷⁹ shall not departf rom Judah, nor the ruler'ss taff from between his feet",²⁸⁵ he wrotethat it was as clear as the sun that it did not relatetoJesus.²⁸⁶ His attempt to revitalize Greek polytheism and ground it in aphilosophicalfoundation, however,was doomedtofailure. Even before the first Council of Nicaea in 325adopted the creed that the Christian faith was based on belief in "one Lord, Jesus Christ,t he onlyS on of God, eternallyb egotteno ft he Father […], true God from true God, begotten, not made",t he title "son of David" had largely given wayt o" son of God",²⁸⁷ though it did not vanish entirely. The "House of David" became as ymbolic "house" in triumphantC hristianity and continued to occupy an important place both in the ascendingChristology and in Christian biblical commentary throughout the generations. In contrast, Jewishp olemics against the sonship of Jesusm ade no mentiono ft hat of Solomon, as they sawn or esemblanceb etween the twoi nstanceso ff atherhood attributed to God. Nor am Ia ware of anyJ ewish sourcet hat rejected God'sf atherhoodw ith respect to Jesus by arguing that Solomon was God's "true son".
The correspondenceb etween Solomon and Jesus on the subject of sonship exists, therefore, primarilyo nt he Christian side; it wasC hristianityt hat strove to defend the uniqueness of Jesus' status as son of God and to claim, in doing so, thatJ esus, as the one true son, was thus alsot he "true Solomon".