by wannabefree 12 Replies latest watchtower bible
My question ... Is the Word of God ever referred to as the Son in present or past tense in the Old Testament? I realize prophetically God was to send a son. But before the Word emptied himself and was born from woman, was he referred to as the Son? Is "the Son" only a term used after his human birth?
I know, I should be doing the research on my own ... buy you are such a treasure trove of knowledge.
Thanks.
The second Psalm immediately springs to mind.
second Psalm ... this would be in a prophetice sense though ... verse 7
I don't think he is actually called God's Son in the Bible until the NT.
Some theologians therefore believe that the Father-Son relationship/designation began at the incarnation.
Hebrews 1:6 indicates that the angels had to be instructed on how to view and treat Jesus when he humbled himself and became human.
The Father instructed them to worship Jesus.
Ahh I see, you were looking for past or present...in that sense I don't think so. First it would probably be a good idea to look into a few things about what words have been translated as "son"....
From http://www.illuminati-news.com/fraud-in-the-bible.htm
Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being". Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man). The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels. It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day. In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness." For example barabba means "resembles his father". Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being".
Son of God: The word bar means a likeness or resemblance to the suffix word. The Aramaic term that Son of God comes from is bardalaha. Translated literally as "son of God" it does not mean this. Bardalaha in reality means "like God" or "God-like". So when Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" we should read this correctly as "God-like" or "like God". So what does that tell you about the translation we read in today's Bibles? It tells you that Jesus was not the Son of God - but that he was "God-like". There is a big difference. Jesus himself repeatedly referred to himself as a "human being". The Aramaic reference does not mean one is physically divine - it means there is an important spiritual relationship between God and the man whom is bestowed that phraseology. In addition, don't forget that the Council of Nicea in 325 CE voted to change the human Jesus to a supernatural being. It wasn't until that time that any church thought of Jesus as such.
Only Begotten Son: The world ehedaya is Aramaic. It is very important to understand its meaning when hearing that phrase being bantered about. When we read that Jesus was God's "only begotten son" - it is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word. The term is found exclusively in the Gospel of John. The phrase we read in English was translated from a Greek word, monogenes. Monos means "single" or "one" and genos means "kind". So the Greek translation originally was with "one-of-a-kind". So where does 'begotten' come from? The Greek word genos is distantly related to the verb gennan which means "to beget". Thus, to translate monogenes as "only begotten" is improper and incorrect--which is an indication of an ill-trained translator being involved with the text. The actual translation should be "unique son" or "one-of-a-kind". The Aramaic word ehedaya means "sole heir" and "the beloved". So when we combine monogenes ehedaya we get "one-of-a-kind, beloved son". That's considerably different from 'only begotten son'.
What does "Son" mean?Well, weh ave to say what does Son of man or son of God mean to a 1st century jew, not to us or anyoen else coming after them.
When we interpret something we must try our best to understand what was written, why, for whom and what time frame.
I think:
When Jesus was called Son of Man, it meant that he was the embodiemnt of "man", like the verses in Daniel and Revelations: "one like the son of man".
It was a description, the son of man was a term fo one that represented and embodied the attributes of Man, he looked like "man" even if the person in question wasn't "a man", espcially in the case when the verse "one LIKE' the son of man, which leads us to understand it as a description of appearence.
So when Jesus called himself or was called son of man, it meant that he was an example, an embodiemnt of all that man was, a "prime example, and in a more deeper context in relation to Jesus, all that man CAN become.
So, that same view applied to Son fo God, as he was called by some, means that those using that viewed him as an embodiemnt of "God", just as son of man would mean what I stated above.
My question ... Is the Word of God ever referred to as the Son in present or past tense in the Old Testament?
There is no concept of "the Son" (as it is in the NT) in the OT. The reference in Psalm 2:7 is to a human king who is adopted as Yahweh's son upon coronation (see its use in 2 Samuel 7:11-14 with reference to king David); this invests authority in the king as Yahweh's representative. This concept was related to the Egyptian belief that the pharaoh becomes divine as an incarnation of Horus upon coronation, although under the Hebrew henotheistic scheme the king was not worshipped as a god as pharaohs were in Egypt (although we know from seals that the Judean royalty did adopt Egyptian royal iconography). The text in Psalms 2 only becomes "messianic" after the fact, when it has been reinterpreted as such by Christians. Also there is no reference to a "Son" in Psalms 2:11-12, as rendered in the KJV, NWT, NIV, and certain other Christian translations.
How about Isaiah 9:6:
New International Version(©1984)
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Does that work?
--Inkie
Thank you for your comments. Very informative.
Inkie ... no ... that would be a prophetic reference
Well . . . I figured, as you asked, the "child" reference and the "son" reference is IN THE PRESENT TENSE; however, what that child/son will become is a "prophetic reference." Whatever. . . .
May Jah bless.
--Inkie
