Source: The Trinity — Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey Chapter 11, pp. 174ff
The next Person in the doctrine of the Trinity is God the Son. Just as we found references in the Old Testament to the Father which revealed that He is a Person and is God, it will not surprise us if we find the same things true concerning the second member of the Holy Trinity.
The question of the personhood of the Son will be resolved on the basis of the same kind of evidence that proved the personhood of the Father. To deny the validity of this evidence when applied to the Son while accepting it when applied to the Father is unreasonable, contradictory and self-refuting. It is also called Special Pleading—"If X then Y, except when it hurts me."
If the Son is divine in the same way as the Father, then we would expect to find that the authors of the Old Testament give divine names, titles, and attributes to the Son. We also expect to find that He is described as doing divine works and that He is the object of divine worship. Thus, the deity of the Son will be based on exactly the same kind of evidence that demonstrates the deity of the Father. If we deny the validity of the evidence for the deity of the Son, then, we must logically deny the validity of the evidence for the deity of the Father. What is valid for the One is equally valid for the Other.
We point this out because Unitarians will accept the validity of such evidence as divine names and titles only when such things are used to prove the deity of the Father. But, when the exact same evidence is used to prove the deity of the Son, they will claim that it is not acceptable. The inconsistency of the Unitarians on this point is indicative of a lack of willingness to follow the evidence to where it leads.
Does the Old Testament speak of a Person who is called the "Son" of God? The prophet Agur answered this question in the affirmative in:
Proverbs 30:4 (NASB) 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!
The Father and the Son are both described as incomprehensible in their natures because in Hebrew idiom, to know the name of someone is to know their nature. But Agur declares that we cannot know the divine, inscrutable name of God or His Son. Thus, the deity of the Son of God is established in this text. He is just as incomprehensible as His divine Father.
Psalm 2:1-12 (NASB) Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing? 2The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed, (Septuagint: Χριστός —Christos) saying, 3"Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!" 4He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them. 5Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury, saying, 6 "But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain." 7"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. 9 'You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.'" 10Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. 11Worship the LORD with reverence And rejoice with trembling. 12Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!
The "His Annointed One" mentioned in verse 2 is clearly the Messiah. The Septuagint reads, "καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ", "and against His Christ." Since King Messiah is addressed as "My Son" in verse 7, He is the "Son of God." In the next few verses the deity of the Son of God is revealed by His divine attributes and what He is given.
The One to whom belongs all the nations of the world (v. 8) is God (Psa 24:1-2). The One who will "break" the nations (v. 9) is God (Job 34:24). The One who will "shatter" the nations is God (Jer 51:19-23). All of these divine works are now applied to the Son of God.
In terms of Hebrew grammar, the pronouns "He," "His," and "Him" in verse12 must refer back to the word "Son" in the first part of the verse. The blessedness of taking refuge in the Son in order to escape His wrath is a clear indication of His true deity because God alone is our Saviour (Isa 45:22). That such language would be attributed to a mere creature would be blasphemous.
The force of this argument is verified by the desperate attempt of the 19th Unitarians to jump over the word "Son" and to go back to the word "Yahweh" in verse 11 and make it the referent for the pronouns in verse 12. This attempt is a clear violation of the rules of Hebrew grammar. But seach desperate measures on their part reveal that they fully understand that, if the pronouns in verse 12 refer to the Son of God, then it is clear that He is true deity.
The Psalmist warns that, if the nations do not "kiss" the Son in submission and reverence, His anger will destroy them on the Day of His wrath. This is significant because the language used of the Son in speaking of His anger and wrath, is only used in the Psalms to speak of the anger and wrath of God. Thus, a divine work is ascribed to the Son (Psa 110:5-6).
In Psalms 2:12 we read: "How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!" Or literally in Hebrew: "blessed are all those who are trusting in Him."
The verb "are trusting" is a participle and throught the Psalms always means to put your personal faith and trust in God as your ultimate hope in this life and in the life to come. The use of this Hebrew verb in reference to the Son is very significant.
Every time, without a single exception, when the word is found in the Psalms, it means to put your personal faith and trust in God. It is never used to speak of trusting men or angels. It always has God as the fucus on one's ultimate faith and trust. Therefore, to "trust" the Son can only mean to trust Him as God. As such, trust is an aspect of divine worship and is here given to the Son. Nowhere in the Bible are we ever told to place our ultimate faith, hope or love in men or angels. Once again, the Person called the "Son" of God is revealed to be true deity.
We are also introduced for the first time to the prophecy that the Messiah would be "begotten" by the Father at some future time. We are not told exactly how and when this will take place. The language itself does not imply that the Messiah is a created being as some Unitarians have suggested.
The Apostle Paul in Acts 13:33 interprets this verse as a reference to the coronation process initiated by the resurrection of Christ when He was "begotten" by the Father in the sense of giving Him life from the dead.
The resurrection of Christ was God the Father's public declaration that Jesus was indeed His Son (Rom 1:4). The process then led to the ascension and the seating of Christ at the right hand of the Father in heaven where Jesus was crowned Lord of all (Acts 2:36; Php 2:5-11).
The Messiah was not "begotten" as "the first act of Jehovah's creation" as the Jehovah's Witnesses and other Arians claim. The attempt to pretend that the word "begotten" means "created" is clearly contradicted by the New Testament's inspired interpretation of the text. Jesus was "begotten" of the Father in space/time history when He was raised from the dead.
From the Writings, we now turn to the Prophets for our next reference to the Son of God, the Messiah.
The Prophet Isaiah tells us of a Child who will be born who is identified as the Son who would be given by God:
Isaiah 9:6 (NASB) 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.
Who is this "Son" who will be born a Child?" The ancient Jewish Targum of Isaiah inserts the word "Messiah" into the verse to make the identity of the "Son" clear to everyone:
(Targum of Isaiah 9:6) The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from before Him who is wonderful in counsel, the mighty God who liveth to eternity — the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days.
The "Son" in Isa 9:6 is the same "Son" referred to in Proverbs 30:4 and Psalms 2. He is the Messiah who would come to set His people free.
By way of parallelism, we are told that the Child who will be born is also the Son who will be given. Thus, the Son is viewed in two different ways. On the one hand, as a Child He is born the son of David. On the other hand, as a Son He is given by the Father. This is the kind of language which led to the development of the doctrine of the two natures of Christ.
We will now examine the divine names and titles in the order in which they are found in the Hebrew text. They are given in four couplets.
The Son is called יָעַץ פִּלְאִי "Wonderful Counselor." The first word is "wonderful" (פִּלְאִי) which we have already noted appears in Judges 13:17-18 as the name of the Messenger of Yahweh who appeared to Manoah and his wife:
And Manoah said to the Messenger of Yahweh "What is your name, so that when your words come to pass, we may honour you?" But the Messenger of Yahweh said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is Wonderful (פִּלְאִי)?"
We have already pointed out in our discussion of that passage that the word פִּלְאִי means the wonderful incomprehensible nature of God. The fact that Isaiah now uses the divine title (פִּלְאִי) from the book of Judges, as a title for the Son, can only mean one thing -- The Son who is to be born is the same divine Person who appeared to Manoah and his wife as the Messenger of Yahweh.
Since this is the same divine Person who repeatedly appeared in human form throughout the Old Testament, then all the other theophanies refer to Him. Thus, the Messenger of the Yahweh is the Son of God and not some other Person in the Godhead.
The significance of Isaiah's linking of the theophanies to the Son of God cannot be underestimated. When we get to the New Testament, we will see that its authors clearly believed that the Jesus of the New Testament was the Messenger of Yahweh of the Old Testament. When people saw God in the Old Testament, they were seeing the Son of God in a pre-incarnational appearance.
Isaiah's prophecy is remarkable because it concerns not a God/Man as sin the older theophanies, but a God/Child who will be born on earth. That God in the future would come to earth as a child should not be anymore amazing than His coming to earth as an adult male.
The reason that Isaiah could handle such a concept was that he himself saw Yahweh in human form sitting on a throne (Isa. 6:1-5; compare with John 8:56-41). This definitive experience of Isaiah forms the context for all his prophetic visions of God coming to earth in human form. For example, after Isaiah sees Yahweh in chapter 6, in chapter 7 we read:
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB) "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.
The name of the Son shall be Immanuel, which means "God with us."
How are we to interpret this passage? However we interpret it, it must meet several important points:
The name "Immanuel" naturally implies the deity of the Child. Dr. E. J. Young comments:
The very presence of the Child brings God to His people. Calvin rightly maintains that the name cannot be applied to anyone who is not God. No one else in the Old Testament bears this name.
The only reason Unitarians refuse to interpret the word "Immanuel" to mean that "God is now with us in this Child" is that they have already decided on a priori grounds that the deity of the child is not possible. Thus, the failure to take the words of Scripture in their natural meaning is due to pre-cenceived ideas of who and what God can and cannot be. Delitzsch faced the same prejudice in his day:
But the further question arises here, What constituted the extraordinary character of the fact here announced? It consisted in the fact that, according to Isa 9:5, Immanuel Himself was to be a (wonder or wonderful). He would be God in corporeal self-manifestation, and therefore a "wonder" as being a superhuman person. We should not venture to assert this if it went beyond the line of Old Testament revelation, but the prophet asserts it himself in Isa 9:5 (cf. Isa 10:21): his words are as clear as possible; and we must not make them obscure, to favour any preconceived notions as to the development of history.
The Messiah's name is not only "Wonderful" but to this is added "Counselor". He is the One who gives wisdom to those who seek it. This was interpreted by the ancient Jews as the divine Wisdom of God, the heavenly Logos.
The Son is next called "Mighty God." The divine name "El" is used of Yahweh on so many occasions that the attempt of some Unitarians to say that the use of this particular name means that the Son is less than true deity is ridiculous. This is obvious, particularly its use in Isaiah 45:22 (NASB) "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other."
Even more to the point is the fact that the divine name "El" is always used by Isaiah as a name for God and is never used for created beings. Plumptre comments:
It is significant that the word for "God" in not Elohim, which may be used in a lower sense of those who are representatives of God, as in Exo 7:2; 22:28; 1Sa 28:13, but El, which is never used by Isaiah, or any other Old Testament writer, in any lower sense than that of absolute Deity, and which, we may note, had been specifically brought before the prophet's thought in the name Immanuel.
The same is true of the argument that because there is no definite article before the word אֵל "El", therefore it only means "a mighty god" and not "Mighty God." But Isaiah did not place a definite article before "Mighty God" in Isa 10:21 either.
Since Isaiah 10:21 clearly refers to Yahweh as "Mighty God" without the definite article, who in their right mind would reduce Yahweh to "a mighty god?" If the absence of the article in Isaiah 9:6 means that the Son is less than true deity then the absence of the article in Isaiah 10:21 means that Yahweh is less than true deity as well.
The next divine title of the Son is אָב עַד . The word order is different in the Hebrew from the King James Version. In the Hebrew the word "Father" is first and then follows the word "eternal." How to translate these words is difficult. Some translations are:
"Father of futurity" - Rotherham
"Father of the world to come" - Knox
"Father of eternity" - Hengstenberg, Plumptre, Young
"the Father of the age" - Calvin
"Eternal Father" - Hengstenberg
"The Giver of eternal life" -Alexander
After a great deal of research on the many issues involved, we have translated it as "Father of eternal life." Calvin correctly pointed out, "The name Father is put for Author."
The word "father" thus does not mean the one who possesses eternity but the One who gives it to others. The word "eternal" is not the normal word for absolute eternity. Thus, we conclude that it means that the Son of God will be the Author of eternal life for those who believe in Him.
The words "Prince of Peace" are quite straightforward and simply mean that the Son is the divine Ruler who will bring peace to this old world of sin and woe.
The description of His kingdom in verse 7 reveals the identity of this Prince. His kingdom is the fulfillment of all the covenants which were made to the Fathers. He shall sit on David's throne ruling over a universal kingdom which is eternal and shall know no end.
He shall also fulfill all those prophecies in Isaiah which predict a new heavens and a new earth where the lion and the lamb will lie together and man shall go to war no more (Isa 2:4; 11:1-9; 65: 17-25). He is thus the great God of Peace as well as the Mighty God of war.
The Son of God revealed in the old Testament is a Person and not an impersonal force. He is God and not a mere creature. This is the kind of biblical evidence which Trinitarians expected to find and which Unitarians cannot legitimately explain away.