In this chapter we want to establish the OT Schoolmaster’s meaning of the phrases “Son of God” and “Son of David.” When we let the OT Scriptures inform our thoughts, as we should, we find that both these terms simply refer, in idiomatic ways, to the biblical truth that Jesus was a man who was the offspring of David. We will also show that Jesus was not God incarnate; rather, he had to first be perfected here on earth before attaining to his ultimate status of perfection.

Let’s begin by examining the term “Son of God” and what it means and doesn’t mean. Although the plural phrase “sons of God” is used early in the Bible, the singular term “Son of God,” as far as the Messiah is concerned, has its roots in God’s promise to King David. Here again is the foundational passage:

⁸Now therefore thus shall you tell my servant David, Thus says YHWH… ¹²When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. ¹³He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. ¹⁴I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; ¹⁵but my loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you. ¹⁶Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before you: your throne shall be established forever. ¹⁷According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak to David. (2 Samuel 7:8–17)

Note that God explicitly said that David’s son would be God’s Son: “I will be his Father, and he shall be my son.” This, coupled with other Scriptures like it, is the biblical source for calling the Messiah the Son of God. It is explicitly because God Himself said that David’s son would be His, God’s Son. Thus “Son of God” and “Son of David” are synonymous terms for all practical purposes.

Most importantly, this is God’s definition of His Son. This is God’s testimony through the prophet Nathan as recorded by Samuel! In other words, God’s definition in the Scriptures is true, and those of Trinitarians and Onenessians are simply man-made lies against God’s sworn oath!

Note also that God is speaking in the future tense. This future son of David’s, who was to be the Son of God, was not yet in existence. Now note that this promise was considered by the apostles of our Lord to be one of the most solemn of oaths:

Brothers, I may tell you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne. (Acts 2:29–30)

The Trinitarians have concluded that “the Son of God” is a code phrase for the second person in their Trinity theory. The Onenessians have concluded that “the Son of God” is a code phrase for the deity of the person of God in Jesus. Both are totally without biblical support (at least that is until they jump to conclusions). However, the idea that “the Son of God” is a biblical “code phrase” for the Son born of the seed from the bodily issue of King David, whom God would make His own son, is clearly defined as such and reiterated in many clear passages of Scriptures.

Now let’s take a brief look at some of the opportunities that Trinitarians and Onenessians take for jumping to their conclusions. Let’s begin by considering the following Psalm as the OT prophets understood it:

Your divine throne is everlasting; your royal scepter is a scepter of equity. You have loved righteousness and hate wickedness; rightly has God, your God, chosen to anoint you with oil of gladness over all your peers. (Psalms 45:7–8 in Jewish Scriptures, 6–7 in Christian Scriptures)

Although later Christians attempt to reinterpret this Psalm differently, in Hebrews 1:8, above, is the way David would have understood it. This Psalm was originally written as God speaking to and about King David. Today’s theologians seem to conveniently forget this little truth. Certainly David did not take his sworn oath from God to mean that he himself was God or that his son or future sons would be God. This is how false interpretations attempt to read into such passages what they never would have meant to the OT prophets who wrote them. Note the internal witness to what we are saying: “rightly has God, your God, chosen to anoint you… ” So the one about whom this was written had a God above him and was anointed above his peers. The peers of course are the rest of us humans, if not David’s Israelite brothers in particular!

No legitimate Jew ever thought that Psalms 45:7–8 should be interpreted to mean that David was YHWH-God Himself. Why then do Trinitarians and Onenessians interpret it in such a way? Answer: because they interpret it through the lenses of pagan ideas about incarnated deities, rather than through the OT Schoolmaster! For evidence of the meaning of the verse in question, there is another passage of Scripture that helps inform our understanding of what Psalms 45:7–8 would have meant to the ancient Jews:

Then Solomon sat on the throne of YHWH as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. (1 Chronicles 29:23, JPS)

Solomon sat on the throne of God! This is how the people of the Old Covenant understood the concept in Psalms 45:7–8: not that the Messiah would be an incarnation of God the Father, but that a human son of David would sit on God’s throne. This interpretation is not jumping to conclusions, but rather it is doing what Jesus demonstrated by looking for another passage that provides more clarity.

Now let’s consider the overall context of the Messiah as a Son of David. David wanted to build a house for God made of stone and wood. That is the one that Solomon built, known as Solomon’s temple. But the temple that God had in mind was actually to be the very people of God. They would be called by God’s name, and God would be housed in their hearts. In this way, Jesus is ultimately the Son of David who would build the house that God was talking about. This is why the Book of Hebrews says that Jesus is the builder of the house. As you read this passage keep in mind God’s words to David that David’s son would build the house. In other words, keep in mind the biblical code phrase for the Son of God, instead of viewing the passage through the lenses of the traditions of men.

¹Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus; ²who was faithful to Him who appointed him, as also was Moses in all his house. ³For he has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who built the house has more honor than the house. ⁴For every house is built by someone; but He who built all things is God. ⁵Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken, ⁶ but Christ is faithful as a Son over his house; whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the glorying of our hope firm to the end. (Hebrews 3:1–6)

According to verse 1, the subject of the passage is Jesus. The two distinct “him” pronouns in verse 2 show that he is personally distinct from God who appointed him. Jesus was faithful as a son (in contrast to Moses, who was faithful as a servant), and Jesus was therefore, as verse 3 says, “counted worthy” of more glory and honor than Moses. This all demonstrates clearly that Jesus was not inherently worthy by deific substance or personality. Rather, it says he had to prove himself through faith; thus, Jesus was faithful to Him who appointed him.” The house that Jesus builds, which is the topic here, is not the whole world or all of mankind—that is what God built. The house that Jesus is building is limited to the household of the saints—us—in whom God is “templed” if we hold firm to the end.

Unfortunately, views such as Oneness destroy the wonderful truth of what this passage is telling us. Keep in mind that Onenessians ultimately dispose of the flesh of Jesus; but here, that flesh, that human person, is exalted for his faithful obedience to the Father. In Oneness terms, that would be like you or me exalting our bodies for getting up and going to work to provide for our needs. It is simply nonsense to contend that God had to be obedient to Himself to be counted worthy of glory.

The fact that Jesus had to prove himself faithful to God the Father has further witness in the NT. For example:

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (Luke 2:52)

This passage begs the question, how could “God” possibly increase in favor with Himself? The very word “increased” used in this passage proves to be very insightful. It originated as a navigational metaphor that means, “to drive forward by means of blows.” “Increased.” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Location: Eerdmans, 1990), Biblesoft, 2006.

This verse is saying that Jesus fulfilled the part of the prophecy wherein God had said, I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my loving kindness shall not depart from him. You may recall, the Scripture says, “… if you are without discipline, of which all have been made partakers, then are you illegitimate, and not sons” (Hebrews 12:8). This is a truth about sons that cannot ring true with the pagan idea that Christ is God Himself incarnate in the flesh rather than God’s Son born of the seed of David his father according to the flesh.

While Trinitarians and Onenessians conclude by assumption that Jesus was perfect because he was God incarnate, the Bible explains his perfection a different way by explaining it as something that he had to attain, and it even explains how he had to attain it:

¹⁰For it became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many children to glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings. ¹¹For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brothers, ¹²saying, “I will declare your name to my brothers. In the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.” ¹³Again, “I will put my trust in him.” Again, “Behold, here am I and the children whom God has given me.” (Hebrews 2:10–13)

He was made perfect through sufferings. Is that true of God? Of course not! So then, in saying that Jesus was faithful, and thereby counted worthy, the passage in Hebrews alludes to what is said in Psalms 45:7: “You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows (or peers).” It is in this context that God designates, exalts, and anoints Jesus above all his fellow human beings.

Perhaps Jesus had this verse in mind when he said, “I am ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). What we can say with certainty is that this set of passages has nothing to do with an incarnation of the person of God and everything to do with God’s sworn oath to David regarding the Son that would proceed out of David’s issue. And we do know that God kept his promise to David and that because of Jesus’ faithful obedience he has been exalted above the rest of his fellows, peers, and brothers; namely, us.

We know this because, in proclaiming this Jesus on the day of Pentecost, Peter said:

Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2:36)

Jesus was made Lord. Think about what that means. Was God “made” God or Lord? Of course not. We teach and believe in the Jesus whom the apostles preached; that is the one who was made both Lord and Messiah, the one who was born of the offspring/seed of David.

Jumping to Conclusions versus “It is Written”: The idea that a future son of David’s would be God’s Son is not jumping to conclusions; it is stated in many Scriptures. The idea that David’s son would be an incarnation of God Himself is never clearly stated in Scriptures and can only be arrived at by jumping to conclusions.

The OT Schoolmaster: The idea that a future son of David’s would be God’s Son (thus, the Son of God) is clearly and consistently taught in the OT. In Matthew 26:63, the high priest insisted that Jesus tell him if he was “the anointed one, the Son of God.” This shows that the high priest understood the title “Son of God” to mean the “Anointed One,” or “Messiah,” and is strong evidence that Jews did not expect their Messiah to be an incarnation of their God the Father.

But Jesus held his peace. The high priest answered him, ‘I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.’ (Matthew 26:63)

Teach No Other Doctrine: The idea that the Son of God, the Son of David, would be none other than God Himself made into a human has no basis in OT prophecies or theology. In fact, quite the opposite was the basis of Nathanael’s confession of right belief in Christ! For Nathanael, the title “Son of God” was another way of saying that Jesus was the King of Israel.

Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are King of Israel!” Jesus answered him, “Because I told you, ‘I saw you underneath the fig tree,’ do you believe?” (John 1:49–50)

 Print This Post