Son of God in the Old Testament
According to the New Testament, the key identity of Jesus Christ is that He is the Son of God.
This is seen in the importance of the need to understand, confess, and believe this about Jesus in the following verses:
Matt 16:13-17
- 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
- 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
- 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
- 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
John 20:30-31
- 30 Many other signs, therefore, Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
- 31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
1 John 2:22-23
- 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
- 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
1 John 5:9-13
- 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for the witness of God is this, that He has borne witness concerning His Son.
- 10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness that God has borne concerning His Son.
- 11 And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
- 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
- 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.
The Scriptural witness to the Son of God, however, did not begin with the New Testament – it first appears in the Old Testament in the abbreviated form of “Son” (with one exception). While the number of Old Testament references to Son [of God]are nowhere near as numerous as that in the New Testament, they are extremely significant and have helped Christians recognize that Jesus Christ is indeed this Son of God and what the Bible means by this phrase. The following chart is a list of nine passages from the Old Testament with brief commentary.
2 Samuel 7:14 -- I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men.
- The first sentence is quoted in Hebrews 1:5 as a reference to Jesus with regard to His superiority over angels. This verse is alluded to Psalm 89:26 as an explicit reference to David and by implication, his sons.
- By comparing the wider context of Psalm 89:20-51; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; and Isaiah 55:3-4 with Luke 1:31-35 and Acts 13:34, it is obvious that the only one who fulfills the description of an everlasting kingdom is Jesus, the Son of God, and therefore never subject to the consequences of violating covenant with God.
- In other words, Jesus is the prophetic anti-type (i.e. He is the obedient Son who maintains his “inheritance”) to David and his sons (i.e. the disobedient sons who have lost their inheritance).
Psalm 2:7 --“I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.
- This is quoted in Acts 13:33 as a reference to Jesus and His resurrection from the dead.
- The final part of this verse is quoted in Hebrews 1:5 as a reference to Jesus with regard to His superiority over angels.
- The final part of this verse is quoted in Hebrews 5:5 as a reference to Jesus being called by God to be the High Priest for those who believe in Him.
Much has been written about Psalm 2 being a “coronation” hymn for those who were heirs to David’s throne. Neither Psalm 2:7, 12 is ever used in the Bible to refer to any son of David other than Jesus who is more than a human descendant of David (see Matthew 22:41-45).
Psalm 2:11-12 -- Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
- People are commanded to worship the “Son” just as they are commanded to worship “the Lord” (YHWH).
- This agrees with Jesus’ statement in John 5:23: “that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father”. See Hebrews 1:8-9 and Psalm 45:6-7.
Proverbs 30:4 -- Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!
- In this verse, the “Son” is not only identified with the Creator but as also being involved in Creation, thus making Him equal with the Creator. See also John 1:1-5; Colossians 1:13-17; Hebrews 1:3.
Isaiah 7:14 --“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
- In this well-known prophesy of the Messiah, given about 700 years before Jesus was born to Mary, the “Son” will not only be born of a virgin, but is “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.”It is quoted in Matthew 1:23. See Matthew 1:18-25 for context.
Isaiah 9:6-7 -- For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.
- In this well-known prophecy of the Messiah, also given about 700 years before Jesus was born to Mary, the “child to be born” who is also the “son to be given” is called “Mighty God,” “Eternal Father,” and the one who rules over all, in other words, “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” (see Revelation 19:16).
Daniel 3:25 -- He answered and said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”
- When Nebuchadnezzar made this statement, he described the fourth “man” as a “son of the gods.” While “gods” is consistent with the pagan context of the Babylonians, the miraculous deliverance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and the fact that “son” is rendered in the singular (as opposed to “sons of God” elsewhere in the Old Testament), the king’s statement is rightly understood as a recognition of an Old Testament theophany or appearance of God to man prior to the Incarnation of the Son of God as the Son of Man.
Hosea 11:1 -- When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.
- The last part of this verse is quoted in Matthew 2:15 as a reference to Jesus and His return to Israel from Egypt.
Micah 5:1-3 -- “Now muster yourselves in troops, daughter of troops; they have laid siege against us; with a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek. 2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.” 3 Therefore, He will give them up until the time when she who is in labor has borne a child.
- In this well-known prophecy of the Messiah, given about 700 years before Jesus was born to Mary, although “Son” is not mentioned it is implied in verse 3 which talks about a female giving birth to a child. This “child” is described as having existed from eternity a characteristic exclusive to God.
- See Matthew 2:6 where Micah 5:2 is quoted from the Septuagint (i.e. the Greek translation of the Old Testament). The language of the magi in Matthew 2:2, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?,” is an implicit claim to deity – no human can be born a king but rather a prince.
- The statement that this child was born King of the Jews agrees with the Scriptural witness that the Son is Eternal (see also Isaiah 9:6; John 17:24; Hebrews 7:3). Jesus is in need of no coronation because as God He has always been King of Kings! The act of the magi worshipping Jesus (Matthew 2:11) also points to the deity of this child/Son. The worship of Jesus by the magi is significant for at least two reasons:
** 1) Magi were known for worshipping the stars but here they follow a supernatural star in order to worship Jesus; and,
** 2) In the New Testament, Jesus accepts worship of Himself whereas Peter and angel(s) refuse to do so because they are not God (see Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10).
Colossians 2:8-9
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.
Matthew 17:4-5
And Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!”
A clear word, for clear thinkers, and believers. No more needs to be said. CM
SOURCE:
Adam Simnowitz February 11, 2013
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
According to the New Testament, the key identity of Jesus Christ is that He is the Son of God.
Exactly .... THE SON of God. Why then are so many verses twisted by interpreter as if they meant "GOD, the Son" ??
There is not one verse in your listing from OT prophecies and/or NT passages quoting from OT passages in reference to Jesus that would support such an idea as Jesus either being Himself "the true God" or maybe just "1 of 3 persons of God". Nowhere in Scripture is there a mention that a "THREE-(persons)-GOD"/a "God-group of 3 individuals"/ etc. exists and does something.
All scriptures referring to Jesus and indicating that he is or actually calling him "Son of God" are ALL without exception speaking about THE HUMAN BEING Jesus, that child who was born of Mary, also known as "Jesus of Nazareth".
-
@C_M_ said:
According to the New Testament, the key identity of Jesus Christ is that He is the Son of God.
I concur with Wolfgang, CM. In none of the verses cited by the author you quoted do I find support for the claim that Jesus as "Son of God" means Jesus was in fact God. It seems to me that "Son of God" refers to Jesus the human being.
For another example, look at the designations and titles used by the devil and by Jesus himself in the temptation scene in Luke 4:
- Luke 4.3: the devil refers to Jesus as "the Son of God"
- Luke 4.8: Jesus declines the devil's offer of "all the kingdoms of the world" in exchange for Jesus' worship of the devil by quoting a verse that says the only one who can be worshiped - that is, the only one Jesus will agree to worship - is the Lord his God
- Luke 4.9: the devil again refers to Jesus as "the Son of God," a reference that includes a verse that reports the existence of one - i.e. God - who will "command his angels" to guard Jesus
- Luke 4.12: Jesus responds to the temptation with a verse that prohibits testing God
I find no equivalence between the identity of "Son of God" and that of "God" in those verses. In fact, I think it's fair to say that in the temptation scene as represented by those verses, Luke CLEARLY understands Jesus as "the Son of God" means Jesus is wholly separate and different from God; that is, Jesus is NOT God.
-
Some people have one god--themselves, and will have no other god before them. Oh, they have plenty of other gods, they usually reject the name Jehovah or Jesus, but they say they have a god(s), even a Christian god(s). They probably do have one called that--a very little one that doesn't cause them any trouble.
-
@GaoLu said:
Some people have one god--themselves, and will have no other god before them. Oh, they have plenty of other gods, they usually reject the name Jehovah or Jesus, but they say they have a god(s), even a Christian god(s). They probably do have one called that--a very little one that doesn't cause them any trouble.And, pray tell, what does this comment have to do with the exchange in this thread?? Seems like you should have opened a different topic ... unless you had something in mind which you thought would relate to the topic at hand?
-
Oh, it is precisely on-topic. He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear.
-
@GaoLu said:
Oh, it is precisely on-topic. He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear.Hmn ... I thought you might be referring to yourself, but then did not quite think you would that emphatically tell us about it
Nevertheless, what does it have to do with the topic of "Son of God in the Old Testament" and scriptures mentioned in various posts in this thread ? -
Oh, I include me! I have a terrible problem with that.
-
@GaoLu said:
Oh, I include me! I have a terrible problem with that.and that relates to the topic of "Son of God in the Old Testament" in which manner or concerning which point?
-
People reject either one or both of God or Jesus as God because they will have no Lord greater than themselves.Post edited by GaoLu on
-
@GaoLu said:
People reject either one or both of God or Jesus as God because they will have no Lord greater than themselves.indeed, people may reject God and/or Jesus because they think they are God .... but, pray tell, how does this relate to the topic of "Son of God in the Old Testament" and the scripture references mentioned in this thread???
-
Based on C_M_'s OP, everything. Did you read it?
-
@GaoLu said:
Based on C_M_'s OP, everything. Did you read it?Yes, I did read it ... and your "reply" appears to be a reply to a different topic
-
Seems clear to me. I am sorry if you missed the relevance, though I don't believe you really did.
-
@GaoLu said:
Seems clear to me. I am sorry if you missed the relevance, though I don't believe you really did.Well if it seems clear to you, perhaps you can share the relevance in a bit more detail so that I (and perhaps some others) won't miss it any longer?
-
Sure. As I said before:
Some people have one god--themselves, and will have no other god before them. Oh, they have plenty of other gods, they usually reject the name Jehovah or Jesus, but they say they have a god(s), even a Christian god(s). They probably do have one called that--a very little one that doesn't cause them any trouble.
People reject either one or both of God or Jesus as God because they will have no Lord greater than themselves.
-
@GaoLu said:
Sure. As I said before:
Some people have one god--themselves, and will have no other god before them. Oh, they have plenty of other gods, they usually reject the name Jehovah or Jesus, but they say they have a god(s), even a Christian god(s). They probably do have one called that--a very little one that doesn't cause them any trouble.People reject either one or both of God or Jesus as God because they will have no Lord greater than themselves.
You sound like a broken record ...
-
Yeah, I know. Not sure why it must need be so.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
"..."Son of God" means Jesus was in fact God..."
CM -
Consider Luther's words of the "Son of God":
Luther states, Christ “is truly God, and therefore it is correct to say: the Son of God suffers. Although so to speak, the one part (namely, the divinity) does not suffer, nevertheless, the person, who is God, suffers in the other part (namely, in the humanity). And in reality, it is so.
In a self-contradictory way, Luther just before had seemed to suggest that the divine nature truly suffered saying, “For if I believe that only the human nature suffered for me, then Christ would be a poor Savior for me, in fact, he himself would need a Savior.”
However, this assumes the communicatio idiomatum (Latin: communication of properties), specifically that “we should ascribe to the whole person whatever pertains to one part of the person because both parts constitute one person.”
Thus God suffered in Christ. Luther extends this further saying, “The two natures, the human and the divine, are inseparable. They are so united in one Person that the properties of the one nature are also attributed to the other. For instance, mortality is peculiar to human nature; now that the human nature is united in one Person with the divine, death, exclusively the attribute of the human nature is also ascribed to the divine.”
He goes on, “Since God and man are one Person, the properties characteristic of humanity alone are attributed to the deity; for the properties of the two natures are also united. . . . Yet these two natures are so united that there is only one God and Lord, that Mary suckles God with her breasts, bathes God, rocks Him, and carries Him; furthermore, that Pilate and Herod crucified and killed God. The two natures are so joined that the true deity and humanity are one. . . . The deity and the humanity joined not only their natures but also their properties, except for sin.”
Notably, Luther himself elsewhere cautions that the divine and human natures are not to be confused but presented in such “a way as to identify and recognize each nature properly.”
Do you agree with Luther on the "Son of God"? CM
SOURCES:
- Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Edited by Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. 55 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, See 24:105-106; 37:209 -210; 22:492-293.
-
@C_M_ said:
Consider Luther's words of the "Son of God":
Luther states, Christ “is truly God, and therefore it is correct to say: the Son of God suffers. Although so to speak, the one part (namely, the divinity) does not suffer, nevertheless, the person, who is God, suffers in the other part (namely, in the humanity). And in reality, it is so.
Although Luther uncovered some other Biblical truth from under the cloak of Roman religion, the above statement only shows how deeply the false element of "Trinity" was rooted in religious clerical circles ... and - perhaps more important - was "immediately" punished by execution at the stake (just compare Michael Servatus and what happened to him at the hands and influence of "reformer" John Calvin")
In a self-contradictory way, Luther just before had seemed to suggest that the divine nature truly suffered saying, “For if I believe that only the human nature suffered for me, then Christ would be a poor Savior for me, in fact, he himself would need a Savior.”
However, this assumes the communicatio idiomatum (Latin: communication of properties), specifically that “we should ascribe to the whole person whatever pertains to one part of the person because both parts constitute one person.”
Lots of hot air ... and indeed self-contradictory (and therefore false !) talk.
Thus God suffered in Christ. Luther extends this further saying, “The two natures, the human and the divine, are inseparable. They are so united in one Person that the properties of the one nature are also attributed to the other. For instance, mortality is peculiar to human nature; now that the human nature is united in one Person with the divine, death, exclusively the attribute of the human nature is also ascribed to the divine.”
And the same essentially self-contradictory non-sense continues ...
He goes on, “Since God and man are one Person, the properties characteristic of humanity alone are attributed to the deity; for the properties of the two natures are also united. . . . Yet these two natures are so united that there is only one God and Lord, that Mary suckles God with her breasts, bathes God, rocks Him, and carries Him; furthermore, that Pilate and Herod crucified and killed God. The two natures are so joined that the true deity and humanity are one. . . . The deity and the humanity joined not only their natures but also their properties, except for sin.”
And reaches the typical heights of totally brain-washed non-sense .... or maybe just a repeating of such non-sense in order avoid being burned at the stake ?
Notably, Luther himself elsewhere cautions that the divine and human natures are not to be confused but presented in such “a way as to identify and recognize each nature properly.”
See above .... perhaps Luther was pursuing a rather smart strategy to stay alive and be able at least to propagate some truths that already were rather revolutionary and opposed to the Roman church endangering his life ?
Do you agree with Luther on the "Son of God"?
No ... I agree with the clear Biblical teaching that the man Jesus if Nazareth, the man born of a woman, is God's only begotten Son. The true God of the Bible is not a "3 part Godhead", nor a "One split God Personality" or any similar non-sensical "Babylonien" construct.
-
Which one do you dislike most, the RCC or Luther? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Which one do you dislike most, the RCC or Luther? CMDislikes don't matter ... do they?
-
You make Luther sound like a desperate religious chameleon to save his membership. CM
-
oh dear oh dear ... your fantasy seems to have gotten the better of you.
I simply see Luther as having seen through some of the RCC errors and having done what was in his means to do to propagate what he perceived to be the truth regarding these points in the RCC religion.
One should remember how deeply rooted those errors were in theological schools and the society system empowered by political power, which means it was by no means as easy to recognize errors and it was even more difficult at a high cost to one's life to dare to differ from the official RCC position.
Discovering and uncovering one grievous error doesn't automatically mean that a person discovers more or all religious errors in the RCC religion system ... and quite obviously, as seen from its rather prominent position even today, the "Holy Trinity" renamed Babylonian mystery religion that was established in the RCC dominated church councils of the 4th century AD with the help of Roman emperor political power, has been very difficult to uncover and make known among the Christian believers ... simply because this pagan influenced error is commonly taken to be Biblical truth even though it contradicts the most basic Biblical truth that the true God if the Bible is only ONE PERSON and not THREE PERSONS.
Luther, in his lifetime, uncovered and taught what he was able to see and discover ... but he still held to other error beliefs of the RCC religion, either just because he did not see them, did not get to do more about them, or perhaps even refrained from doing something about it, as he was concentrating on the work that had fallen in his lap with what he did accomplish with his reformation.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
