Psalms 2:7

2:7 The king says, ¹  “I will announce the Lord’s decree. He said to me: ² 

‘You are my son! ³  This very day I have become your father!

Psalms 119:12

119:12 You deserve praise, ⁴  O Lord!

Teach me your statutes!

Isaiah 9:6-7

9:6 For a child has been ⁵  born to us,

a son has been given to us.

He shoulders responsibility

and is called: ⁶ 

Extraordinary Strategist, ⁷ 

Mighty God, ⁸ 

Everlasting Father, ⁹ 

Prince of Peace. ¹⁰ 

9:7 His dominion will be vast ¹¹ 

and he will bring immeasurable prosperity. ¹² 

He will rule on David’s throne

and over David’s kingdom, ¹³ 

establishing it ¹⁴  and strengthening it

by promoting justice and fairness, ¹⁵ 

from this time forward and forevermore.

The Lord’s intense devotion to his people ¹⁶  will accomplish this.

Matthew 3:17

3:17 And ¹⁷  a voice from heaven said, ¹⁸  “This is my one dear Son; ¹⁹  in him ²⁰  I take great delight.” ²¹ 

Matthew 8:29

8:29 They ²²  cried out, “Son of God, leave us alone! ²³  Have you come here to torment us before the time?” ²⁴ 

John 1:34

1:34 I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God.” ²⁵ 

John 1:49-51

1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king ²⁶  of Israel!” ²⁷  1:50 Jesus said to him, ²⁸  “Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” ²⁹  1:51 He continued, ³⁰  “I tell all of you the solemn truth ³¹  – you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” ³² 

John 5:18-25

5:18 For this reason the Jewish leaders ³³  were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.

5:19 So Jesus answered them, ³⁴  “I tell you the solemn truth, ³⁵  the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, ³⁶  but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father ³⁷  does, the Son does likewise. ³⁸  5:20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he does, and will show him greater deeds than these, so that you will be amazed. 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, ³⁹  so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. ⁴⁰  5:22 Furthermore, the Father does not judge ⁴¹  anyone, but has assigned ⁴²  all judgment to the Son, 5:23 so that all people ⁴³  will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

5:24 “I tell you the solemn truth, ⁴⁴  the one who hears ⁴⁵  my message ⁴⁶  and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, ⁴⁷  but has crossed over from death to life. 5:25 I tell you the solemn truth, ⁴⁸  a time ⁴⁹  is coming – and is now here – when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

John 10:30-31

10:30 The Father and I ⁵⁰  are one.” ⁵¹ 

10:31 The Jewish leaders ⁵²  picked up rocks again to stone him to death.

John 10:36

10:36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart ⁵³  and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

John 19:7

19:7 The Jewish leaders ⁵⁴  replied, ⁵⁵  “We have a law, ⁵⁶  and according to our law he ought to die, because he claimed to be the Son of God!” ⁵⁷ 

John 19:1

Pilate Tries to Release Jesus

19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged severely. ⁵⁸ 

John 1:11

1:11 He came to what was his own, ⁵⁹  but ⁶⁰  his own people ⁶¹  did not receive him. ⁶² 

John 6:15

6:15 Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone. ⁶³ 

[2:7]  ¹ tn The words “the king says” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The speaker is the Lord’s chosen king.

[2:7]  ² tn Or “I will relate the decree. The Lord said to me” (in accordance with the Masoretic accentuation).

[2:7]  ³ sn ‘You are my son!’ The Davidic king was viewed as God’s “son” (see 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26-27). The idiom reflects ancient Near Eastern adoption language associated with covenants of grant, by which a lord would reward a faithful subject by elevating him to special status, referred to as “sonship.” Like a son, the faithful subject received an “inheritance,” viewed as an unconditional, eternal gift. Such gifts usually took the form of land and/or an enduring dynasty. See M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184-203, for general discussion and some striking extra-biblical parallels.

[119:12]  ⁴ tn Heb “[are] blessed.”

[9:6]  ⁵ tn The Hebrew perfect (translated “has been born” and “has been given”) is used here as the prophet takes a rhetorical stance in the future. See the note at 9:1.

[9:6]  ⁶ tn Or “and dominion was on his shoulders and he called his name.” The prefixed verbs with vav (ו) consecutive are used with the same rhetorical sense as the perfects in v. 6a. See the preceding note. There is great debate over the syntactical structure of the verse. No subject is indicated for the verb “he called.” If all the titles that follow are ones given to the king, then the subject of the verb must be indefinite, “one calls.” However, some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, “and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, ‘Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’”

[9:6]  ⁷ tn Some have seen two titles here (“Wonderful” and “Counselor,” cf. KJV, ASV). However, the pattern of the following three titles (each contains two elements) and the use of the roots פָּלַא (pala’) and יָעַץ (ya’ats) together in Isa 25:1 (cf. כִּי עָשִׂיתָ פֶּלֶא עֵצוֹת מֵרָחוֹק אֱמוּנָה אֹמֶן) and 28:29 (cf. הִפְלִיא עֵצָה) suggest otherwise. The term יוֹעֵץ (yo’ets) could be taken as appositional (genitive or otherwise) of species (“a wonder, i.e., a wonder as a counselor,” cf. NAB “Wonder-Counselor”) or as a substantival participle for which פָּלַא provides the direct object (“one who counsels wonders”). יוֹעֵץ is used as a royal title elsewhere (cf. Mic 4:9). Here it probably refers to the king’s ability to devise military strategy, as suggested by the context (cf. vv. 3-4 and the following title אֵל גִּבּוֹר, ’el gibor). In Isa 11:2 (also a description of this king) עֵצָה (’etsah) is linked with גְּבוּרָה (gÿvurah, the latter being typically used of military might, cf. BDB 150 s.v.). Note also עֵצָה וּגְבוּרָה לַמִּלְחָמָה in Isa 36:5. פֶּלֶא (pele’) is typically used of God (cf. however Lam 1:9). Does this suggest the deity of the messianic ruler? The NT certainly teaches he is God, but did Isaiah necessarily have this in mind over 700 years before his birth? Since Isa 11:2 points out that this king will receive the spirit of the Lord, which will enable him to counsel, it is possible to argue that the king’s counsel is “extraordinary” because it finds its source in the divine spirit. Thus this title does not necessarily suggest that the ruler is deity.

[9:6]  ⁸ tn גִּבּוֹר (gibbor) is probably an attributive adjective (“mighty God”), though one might translate “God is a warrior” or “God is mighty.” Scholars have interpreted this title is two ways. A number of them have argued that the title portrays the king as God’s representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king’s deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God’s representative on earth. Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (See Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). According to proponents of this view, Isa 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself. The other option is to regard this title as a reference to God, confronting Isaiah’s readers with the divinity of this promised “child.” The use of this same title that clearly refers to God in a later passage (Isa 10:21) supports this interpretation. Other passages depict Yahweh as the great God and great warrior (Deut 10:17; Jer. 32:18). Although this connection of a child who is born with deity is unparalleled in any earlier biblical texts, Isaiah’s use of this title to make this connection represents Isaiah’s attempt (at God’s behest) to advance Israel in their understanding of the ideal Davidic king for whom they long.

[9:6]  ⁹ tn This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of “father” is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850-800 b.c.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: “To some I was a father, to others I was a mother.” In another inscription (ca. 800 b.c.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him “a father and a mother” to his people. (See ANET 499-500.) The use of “everlasting” might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king’s long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4-6; 61:6-7; 72:5, 17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title “Mighty God”) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.

[9:6]  ¹⁰ tn This title pictures the king as one who establishes a safe socio-economic environment for his people. It hardly depicts him as a meek individual, for he establishes peace through military strength (as the preceding context and the first two royal titles indicate). His people experience safety and prosperity because their invincible king destroys their enemies. See Pss 72 and 144 for parallels to these themes.

[9:7]  ¹¹ tc The Hebrew text has לְםַרְבֵּה (lÿmarbeh), which is a corrupt reading. לם is dittographic; note the preceding word, שָׁלוֹם (shalom). The corrected text reads literally, “great is the dominion.”

[9:7]  ¹² tn Heb “and to peace there will be no end” (KJV and ASV both similar). On the political and socio-economic sense of שָׁלוֹם (shalom) in this context, see the note at v. 6 on “Prince of Peace.”

[9:7]  ¹³ tn Heb “over the throne of David, and over his kingdom.” The referent of the pronoun “his” (i.e., David) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[9:7]  ¹⁴ tn The feminine singular pronominal suffix on this form and the following one (translated “it” both times) refers back to the grammatically feminine noun “kingdom.”

[9:7]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “with/by justice and fairness”; ASV “with justice and with righteousness.”

[9:7]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “the zeal of the Lord.” In this context the Lord’s “zeal” refers to his intense devotion to and love for his people which prompts him to vindicate them and to fulfill his promises to David and the nation.

[3:17]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “and behold.” The Greek word ἰδού (idou) has not been translated here.

[3:17]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “behold, a voice from the cloud, saying.” This is an incomplete sentence in Greek which portrays intensity and emotion. The participle λέγουσα (legousa) was translated as a finite verb in keeping with English style.

[3:17]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “my beloved Son,” or “my Son, the beloved [one].” The force of ἀγαπητός (agaphtos) is often “pertaining to one who is the only one of his or her class, but at the same time is particularly loved and cherished” (L&N 58.53; cf. also BDAG 7 s.v. 1).

[3:17]  ²⁰ tn Grk “in whom.”

[3:17]  ²¹ tn Or “with whom I am well pleased.”

[8:29]  ²² tn Grk “And behold, they cried out, saying.” The Greek word ἰδού (idou) has not been translated because it has no exact English equivalent here, but adds interest and emphasis (BDAG 468 s.v. 1). The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant and has not been translated.

[8:29]  ²³ tn Grk “what to us and to you?” (an idiom). The phrase τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί (ti Jhmin kai soi) is Semitic in origin, though it made its way into colloquial Greek (BDAG 275 s.v. ἐγώ). The equivalent Hebrew expression in the OT had two basic meanings: (1) When one person was unjustly bothering another, the injured party could say “What to me and to you?” meaning, “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?” (Judg 11:12, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Kgs 17:18). (2) When someone was asked to get involved in a matter he felt was no business of his own, he could say to the one asking him, “What to me and to you?” meaning, “That is your business, how am I involved?” (2 Kgs 3:13, Hos 14:8). These nuances were apparently expanded in Greek, but the basic notions of defensive hostility (option 1) and indifference or disengagement (option 2) are still present. BDAG suggests the following as glosses for this expression: What have I to do with you? What have we in common? Leave me alone! Never mind! Hostility between Jesus and the demons is certainly to be understood in this context, hence the translation: “Leave us alone….”

[8:29]  ²⁴ sn There was an appointed time in which demons would face their judgment, and they seem to have viewed Jesus’ arrival on the scene as an illegitimate change in God’s plan regarding the time when their sentence would be executed.

[1:34]  ²⁵ tc ‡ What did John the Baptist declare about Jesus on this occasion? Did he say, “This is the Son of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, |outo" estin Jo Juio" tou qeou), or “This is the Chosen One of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, outo" estin Jo eklekto" tou qeou)? The majority of the witnesses, impressive because of their diversity in age and locales, read “This is the Son of God” (so {Ì^66,75 A B C L Θ Ψ 0233^vid Ë^1,13 33 1241 aur c f l g bo as well as the majority of Byzantine minuscules and many others}). Most scholars take this to be sufficient evidence to regard the issue as settled without much of a need to reflect on internal evidence. On the other hand, one of the earliest mss for this verse, {Ì⁵} (3rd century), evidently read οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. (There is a gap in the ms at the point of the disputed words; it is too large for υἱός especially if written, as it surely would have been, as a nomen sacrum [uMs]. The term ἐκλεκτός was not a nomen sacrum and would have therefore taken up much more space [eklektos]. Given these two variants, there is hardly any question as to what Ì⁵ read.) This papyrus has many affinities with א*, which here also has ὁ ἐκλεκτός. In addition to their combined testimony Ì^106vid b e ff^2* sy^s,c also support this reading. ̹⁰⁶ is particularly impressive, for it is a second third-century papyrus in support of ὁ ἐκλεκτός. A third reading combines these two: “the elect Son” (electus filius in ff^2c sa and a [with slight variation]). Although the evidence for ἐκλεκτός is not as impressive as that for υἱός, the reading is found in early Alexandrian and Western witnesses. Turning to the internal evidence, “the Chosen One” clearly comes out ahead. “Son of God” is a favorite expression of the author (cf. 1:49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31); further, there are several other references to “his Son,” “the Son,” etc. Scribes would be naturally motivated to change ἐκλεκτός to υἱός since the latter is both a Johannine expression and is, on the surface, richer theologically in 1:34. On the other hand, there is not a sufficient reason for scribes to change υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. The term never occurs in John; even its verbal cognate (ἐκλέγω, eklegw) is never affirmed of Jesus in this Gospel. ἐκλεκτός clearly best explains the rise of υἱός. Further, the third reading (“Chosen Son of God”) is patently a conflation of the other two. It has all the earmarks of adding υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. Thus, ὁ υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ is almost certainly a motivated reading. As R. E. Brown notes (John [AB], 1:57), “On the basis of theological tendency…it is difficult to imagine that Christian scribes would change ‘the Son of God’ to ‘God’s chosen one,’ while a change in the opposite direction would be quite plausible. Harmonization with the Synoptic accounts of the baptism (‘You are [This is] my beloved Son’) would also explain the introduction of ‘the Son of God’ into John; the same phenomenon occurs in vi 69. Despite the weaker textual evidence, therefore, it seems best – with Lagrange, Barrett, Boismard, and others – to accept ‘God’s chosen one’ as original.”

[1:49]  ²⁶ tn Although βασιλεύς (basileus) lacks the article it is definite due to contextual and syntactical considerations. See ExSyn 263.

[1:49]  ²⁷ sn Nathanael’s confession – You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel – is best understood as a confession of Jesus’ messiahship. It has strong allusions to Ps 2:6-7, a well-known messianic psalm. What Nathanael’s exact understanding was at this point is hard to determine, but “son of God” was a designation for the Davidic king in the OT, and Nathanael parallels it with King of Israel here.

[1:50]  ²⁸ tn Grk “answered and said to him.” This has been simplified in the translation to “said to him.”

[1:50]  ²⁹ sn What are the greater things Jesus had in mind? In the narrative this forms an excellent foreshadowing of the miraculous signs which began at Cana of Galilee.

[1:51]  ³⁰ tn Grk “and he said to him.”

[1:51]  ³¹ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[1:51]  ³² sn The title Son of Man appears 13 times in John’s Gospel. It is associated especially with the themes of crucifixion (3:14; 8:28), revelation (6:27; 6:53), and eschatological authority (5:27; 9:35). The title as used in John’s Gospel has for its background the son of man figure who appears in Dan 7:13-14 and is granted universal regal authority. Thus for the author, the emphasis in this title is not on Jesus’ humanity, but on his heavenly origin and divine authority.

[5:18]  ³³ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” See the note on the phrase “Jewish leaders” in v. 10.

[5:19]  ³⁴ tn Grk “answered and said to them.”

[5:19]  ³⁵ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[5:19]  ³⁶ tn Grk “nothing from himself.”

[5:19]  ³⁷ tn Grk “that one”; the referent (the Father) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[5:19]  ³⁸ sn What works does the Son do likewise? The same that the Father does – and the same that the rabbis recognized as legitimate works of God on the Sabbath (see note on working in v. 17). (1) Jesus grants life (just as the Father grants life) on the Sabbath. But as the Father gives physical life on the Sabbath, so the Son grants spiritual life (John 5:21; note the “greater things” mentioned in v. 20). (2) Jesus judges (determines the destiny of people) on the Sabbath, just as the Father judges those who die on the Sabbath, because the Father has granted authority to the Son to judge (John 5:22-23). But this is not all. Not only has this power been granted to Jesus in the present; it will be his in the future as well. In v. 28 there is a reference not to spiritually dead (only) but also physically dead. At their resurrection they respond to the Son as well.

[5:21]  ³⁹ tn Grk “and makes them live.”

[5:21]  ⁴⁰ tn Grk “the Son makes whomever he wants to live.”

[5:22]  ⁴¹ tn Or “condemn.”

[5:22]  ⁴² tn Or “given,” or “handed over.”

[5:23]  ⁴³ tn Grk “all.” The word “people” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for stylistic reasons and for clarity (cf. KJV “all men”).

[5:24]  ⁴⁴ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[5:24]  ⁴⁵ tn Or “obeys.”

[5:24]  ⁴⁶ tn Or “word.”

[5:24]  ⁴⁷ tn Grk “and does not come into judgment.”

[5:25]  ⁴⁸ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[5:25]  ⁴⁹ tn Grk “an hour.”

[10:30]  ⁵⁰ tn Grk “I and the Father.” The order has been reversed to reflect English style.

[10:30]  ⁵¹ tn The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν ({en esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.” Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).

[10:31]  ⁵² tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” Here the phrase refers to the Jewish leaders. See the notes on the phrases “Jewish people” in v. 19 and “Jewish leaders” in v. 24.

[10:36]  ⁵³ tn Or “dedicated.”

[19:7]  ⁵⁴ tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” In NT usage the term ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. (For further information see R. G. Bratcher, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 26 [1975]: 401-9.) Here the phrase refers to the Jewish leaders, especially members of the Sanhedrin, and their servants (mentioned specifically as “the chief priests and their servants” in John 19:6).

[19:7]  ⁵⁵ tn Grk “answered him.”

[19:7]  ⁵⁶ sn This law is not the entire Pentateuch, but Lev 24:16.

[19:7]  ⁵⁷ tn Grk “because he made himself out to be the Son of God.”

[19:1]  ⁵⁸ tn Or “had him flogged,” or (traditional), “scourged him.” The verb should be read as causative. Pilate ordered Jesus to be flogged. A Roman governor would not carry out such a sentence in person. BDAG 620 s.v. μαστιγόω 1. states, “If J refers to the ‘verberatio’ given those condemned to death (TMommsen, Röm. Strafrecht 1899, 938f; Jos., Bell. 2, 308; 5, 449), it is odd that Pilate subsequently claims no cause for action (vs. 6); but if the latter statement refers only to the penalty of crucifixion, μ. vs. 1 may be equivalent to παιδεύω (q.v. 2bγ) in Lk 23:16, 22 (for μ. of a non-capital offense PFlor I, 61, 61 [85ad]=Mitt-Wilck. II/2, 80 II, 61).”

[1:11]  ⁵⁹ tn Grk “to his own things.”

[1:11]  ⁶⁰ tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

[1:11]  ⁶¹ tn “People” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

[1:11]  ⁶² sn His own people did not receive him. There is a subtle irony here: When the λόγος (logos) came into the world, he came to his own (τὰ ἴδια, ta idia, literally “his own things”) and his own people (οἱ ἴδιοι, Joi idioi), who should have known and received him, but they did not. This time John does not say that “his own” did not know him, but that they did not receive him (παρέλαβον, parelabon). The idea is one not of mere recognition, but of acceptance and welcome.

[6:15]  ⁶³ sn Jesus, knowing that his “hour” had not yet come (and would not, in this fashion) withdrew again up the mountainside alone. The ministry of miracles in Galilee, ending with this, the multiplication of the bread (the last public miracle in Galilee recorded by John) aroused such a popular response that there was danger of an uprising. This would have given the authorities a legal excuse to arrest Jesus. The nature of Jesus’ kingship will become an issue again in the passion narrative of the Fourth Gospel (John 18:33ff.). Furthermore, the volatile reaction of the Galileans to the signs prepares for and foreshadows the misunderstanding of the miracle itself, and even the misunderstanding of Jesus’ explanation of it (John 6:22-71).