This concept is foreign to both Jewish and Christian thought, yet it shows in the Old Testament. Yahweh was speaking to Job:

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Who laid its corner stone? When the Morning Stars sang together and all the Sons of God shouted for joy! Job 38:4-7.

Few scriptures surpass the majesty of that passage. It is a testimony of resounding praise to our Creator. Where were any of us when he laid the foundations of the earth? Can any of us answer? Do any of us have understanding? Who determined its measurements? Who stretched the line to define its foundations? What holds it swinging in the vast stretches of space? Who is the source of glory?

Jesus created in the dawn of time. His creation was a wonder and a beauty. God's divine children exalted in the majesty and the glory of that stupendous event.

The Morning Stars were there. They watched as it came forth. They sang together in praises to God.

The Sons of God were there. They shouted for joy as creation leaped into being.

Who are these Morning Stars? Who are these Sons of God? They exist when time begins; they cannot be human mortals. They must be divine beings. Hillel ben Shachar Day Star, Son of Dawn (Lucifer) was there. He was a Morning Star, a glorious celestial Son. But he wanted to ascend above the stars of God. He laid the worlds low. Now he has been judged.

The divine Sons of God are mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament. Job 1:6 and 2:1 say these Sons presented themselves before Yahweh. Satan also came among them; he too was a created Son.

Many persons debate the meaning of the Sons of God in Job. They understand them as human mortals. But the setting is one of new creation; our world does not yet exist. They present themselves before Yahweh. When Satan comes in also among the Sons of God many believe he is presenting himself as a tempter among men, earthly sons of God. But the passage shows an assembly of divine beings; Satan is among them. They gather on the Mount of Assembly; they assemble in festal gathering.

We human beings consider ourselves to be God's children, his sons and daughters. The New Testament writers stated that we are sons of God. John mentioned the children of God, I John 3:10, 5:2. Paul also used this phrase several places, Rom 8:16, 9:8, and so on. In Gal 3:26 he used the phrase "sons of God." He also used this phrase in Rom 8:14, and then, in discussing the Spirit leading the children of God, he makes a curious remark:

I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.

What did Paul mean? He is speaking about the present sufferings. They are not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed. Something great will happen on our planet. The creation waits for this great event. At that time the sons of God will be revealed.

When the KJV translators met this passage they said the glory will be revealed in us. But the preposition is debatable; the Greek word eis is an imprecise form; it could mean to or into, it does not necessarily mean "in" or "within."

Did Paul mean a new planetary dispensation would bring human mortals out of their bondage of sin and wickedness to the bright glory of holiness and righteousness? Are we not now the sons of God? The apostles believed we were. How, then, can we be revealed as the sons of God? Will we be revealed in more glorious form? The phrasing shows the future; the creation waits with eager longing. There will be new revelations on this world in ages to come.

Is it possible Paul was hinting at the revealing of the divine Sons of God? If so, why not discuss it? Why leave it hanging with such a bare hint?

If we, his created mortal children, are worthy to be called sons of God, then surely his created divine children are also worthy to be called Sons of God. Why should the appellative not apply to those beings who inhabit the heavens and assist in its administration and control? They rightfully should be called Sons of God.

The difficulty is this. The generations gave no thought to these matters. Christians concentrated on preaching the good news of Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection. Little attention was paid to the realms on high. When questions were raised about divine beings they usually were passed over casually and relegated to third order importance in Christian and Jewish theologies. All divine beings were angels. After all, what did it really matter in our relationship with God? We were concerned with personal salvation; we were little concerned with activities in the celestial realms.

Now something new is happening. We are about to enter a new age. The conditions are different. We no longer can devote ourselves exclusively to personal salvation. This planet is about to experience more open contact with the celestial realms. Great events are unfolding but we are not ready for them. We are in a deep sleep.

If we are to become a part of the new world, if we are to contribute to the cause of our Creator, if we are to dedicate our lives to his service then we must learn more about his activities, his plans, and his purpose. We cannot learn, we cannot understand, we cannot contribute unless we are willing to face new revelations, place them into proper context, and learn how they affect our understanding and our decisions.

As an illustration of the confusion which confronts us, consider the passage of Genesis 6:1-4. This refers to sons of God also, but different from those of Job. These sons are physical; they saw that the daughters of men were fair and took them to wife. Children were born; those children became the mighty men of old, men of renown.

These sons of God are distinguished from the daughters of men. They carry genetic strains that uplift human stock. They produce a mighty race. Would such mighty powers come from an ordinary human race? Where are the remnants of that race today? Are they submerged among other people?

If these sons of God were not ordinary men where did they come from? They must be physical if they mate with earth women. But the other Sons the Gabriels, Michaels, and Melchizedeks are spirit beings who could not mate physically. These physical sons show there are different ranks, different functions, and different beings who inhabit the heavens. There is a great kingdom up there, but we would prefer not to know about it. The possibilities are truly disturbing.

Further insight can be obtained from other passages. Psalm 29:1 also shows there are divine Sons of God.

Ascribe to Yahweh, O Sons of God, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.

Psalm 89:6 has:

For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh; who among the Sons of God is like Yahweh.

The translations do not give us accurate readings of these passages. They use such phrases as "ye mighty" and "heavenly beings"; they avoid showing divine Sons. By avoiding the reality of these divine Sons the translations practice deception. How truly unfortunate.

To understand how this deception came about we should consider the Hebrew words for God. The first is Elo'a, pronounced Eloah or Eloha. This form is singular; it is rarely used in the Hebrew text. The form used most often is plural Elo'im. Although Elohim is plural it is understood to mean singular God in a majestic sense.

A shortened form, El, is also often used. The plural of this form is El'im.

Examples of El translated as God are found in Ps 5:4, 77:9, 78:7 and many other places. Difficulty surrounding these forms is shown by Josh 22:22. The words are El, Elo'im, Yahweh, in that order, repeated twice. RSV renders this: The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! KJV renders it: The LORD God of gods, The LORD God of gods. Since El is not plural in this passage and had to be translated as singular God, KJV chose to translate Elo'im as gods and not God, technically correct but violating the habitual translation of the word.

Ps 29:1 and 89:6 have the phrase "benai El'im," literally "sons of gods." KJV translated this phrase as "O ye mighty" in 29:1 and "sons of the mighty" in 89:6. In the first case they ignored "sons" completely. In neither case did they translate El'im as God, or even gods.

The context in both passages is heavenly. Therefore, they knew the statements were about divine beings. To support traditional views of a one-and-only Son of God they had to avoid Sons of God. This dilemma led to their deceptive forms. RSV avoided the problem by translating "O heavenly beings" and "heavenly beings." In both cases they ignored "sons" while maintaining the plurals. (RSV has footnotes showing "sons of gods," perhaps supporting godless scholarly views that the passage should be understood as referring to pagan gods.)

Christians avoid this knowledge because they believe there is only one Son of God, Jesus. Jews avoid it because they forgot the action of divine beings who worked with them during the Exodus. Both Christians and Jews would prefer not to look at these realities. If both continue in this blindness they cannot lift their minds to higher visions; they cannot fulfill God's purpose.

Christian belief is well expressed by John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life, John 3:16.

This is the most famous of all New Testament passages. It is the foundation of Christian faith.

But even this passage has problems. To reinforce traditional views, RSV ignored the Greek word "begotten" and used instead "the only Son of God." However, the Greek text has the word monogene, only begotten, or only-born. RSV was following the prevalent Christian notion that Jesus is the only divine Son in all creation. This notion began with the apostles and has been reinforced in every succeeding generation. When Christians read this passage they assume it means that Jesus is the only Son begotten by the Father, where begotten really means created, or brought into being. However, the phrase used by John does not necessarily mean begotten by the Father. It could just as well mean only begotten in the sense of human birth, literally only-born. In the latter view it means Jesus was the only divine Son of God who was born of an earth woman. He was the only divine being of human birth on this world. He is a divine Son who submitted himself to life in the flesh. He is different from other divine Sons. He is unique in his universe experience. He left his throne on high to be born as a lowly babe of the world and to serve as a man among men. He is greatly to be praised for his gift to us, as the premier example of ultimate service to the Father and to his created children.

(Serious scholarly debate has revolved around monogene. Various ancient texts show this word being used as "only" and not as "only begotten." However, those studies ignore the possible influence of the New Testament on post-apostolic writers.)

The statement in Psalm 89:6 has other implications. If Yahweh is the Creator he created many divine Sons. When the Psalm asks whom among the Sons of God can compare to him it is comparing the created Sons to him. They cannot compare!

If Jesus is Yahweh and Jesus is a Son of God then Yahweh is also a Son of God, the firstborn of all creation. He is the highest of divine Sons, a Son who created. He is a Creator Son. He is a glorious and majestic Son of the Father, a great Son of God.

He is our Creator and our Lord. He is our Savior and our God. He is God the Son.

Considered from this viewpoint the statement in Psalm 89:6 can be taken another way. Yahweh may be only one of many Sons created by the Father, as Michael is one of the Chief Princes. If the Father can create one Son he surely can create more than one Son. We do not demean the Father's creative powers by conjecturing that he may have created more than one Son. In fact, by admitting that he could create a host of divine Sons, we elevate his power and his glory. If the "only-begotten" passage in the Gospel of John refers to human birth, and not divine birth, there is no biblical limit on the Father's creative powers. (Theologically, an infinite God would have no limits on his creative powers. To limit him to one Son would restrict those infinite powers.)

Another illustration of these problems is found in Paul. He said Adam was a type of the one who was to come, Rom 5:14. He meant that Jesus and Adam were both divine Sons. Adam was not of human birth; he was of divine creation. Adam was made of dust (material substance and biological molecules) while Jesus was a high spirit being.

Other passages present similar difficulty to traditional views. Many believe the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:13 is the Father. We know from the remarks that this Ancient of Days is a divine being of high celestial status, an administrator within the realms of space and time, a universe authority. Therefore, he cannot be the Father; the Father cannot live within his own creation because he is the one who sustains and upholds it. Neither is the Ancient of Days the Son. One like the Son of Man was presented before him. He must be different from the Son of Man. Would one Son of Man be presented before another?

Whether this Son of Man was Jesus or another being we cannot say; we only know he was like the Son of Man. If he were

not Jesus then there are other divine beings who are like Jesus in their roles and in their functions, suggesting again that Jesus is not the only Creator Son.

Matt 16:13-20 illustrates how Jesus conducted himself on this crucial question.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one he was the Christ.

(The conversations would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic. Therefore Peter would have said to him, "You are the Messiah." We must keep these language differences in mind when studying the Bible. Also, Peter's name was not Peter. Jesus used Cephas, the Hebrew word for rock. It was a

nickname, probably because of Peter's stocky build. We use the same nickname today. Peter is from the Greek Petras = rock, translated thus from the Hebrew Cephas.)

A most remarkable fact of the New Testament is the lack of instruction by Jesus on the Messiah. Jesus did not discourse on the Messiah, either publicly to the crowds, or privately to his apostles. The gospel record has no evidence of such instruction. On the contrary, he strictly charged his apostles to tell no one he was the Messiah.

What did he say about the Messiah? What does the gospel record show?

We have his question to the scribes about the passage from Psalm 110, Matt 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37, Luke 20:41-44. We also have his question to the apostles in Matt 16:16, with the parallels in Mark 8:29 and Luke 9:20. Other than that he is recorded admitting he was the Messiah to a Samaritan woman in John 4:25-26. He is also recorded admitting it to Caiaphas, the high priest, in Mark 14:61-62.

However, even the last two admissions are unsupported in the other gospels. The passage in John stands alone; the passage in Mark also stands alone. The parallels in the other gospels for the question by Caiaphas do not have Jesus admitting he was the Messiah. Matt 26:63-64 states that Jesus responded to the question by saying, "You say so." In Luke 22:66-68 he responds to the question from the chief priest by saying, "If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer." John, who was a personal witness at Jesus' trial, did not report this admission in his version of the event, John 18:15-24. If John was personally present it seems hardly possible he would have neglected to report such an important reply.

The people wanted to know, was he the Christ or not? Why did he keep them in suspense, John 10:24? Others doubted he was the Christ, John 7:41.

How could something so important be neglected by Jesus? Why did he not teach he was the Messiah? When he states that he will be sitting at the right hand of the Father in power and great glory he is showing that he is God, the Creator, and not a mere planetary ruler.

The word Christian means one who is a follower of the Christ, or of the Messiah. All Christianity is pervaded with the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. The apostles believed he was; Peter and John taught he was. Paul believed he was; his title for Jesus was Christ, the Messiah, used everywhere in his letters.

But the most Jesus admits directly to his apostles is to bless Peter for the insight he was given by the Father. We do not know if he blessed Peter because Peter knew he was the Messiah or because Peter recognized him as a divine Son of God. The parallels in Mark 8:29 and Luke 9:20 do not report the blessing. See also John 6:69.

The belief in Jesus as the Messiah is not attested by the record; it is inferred from tradition. The consensus, by those who have examined this problem, is that he taught it as a secret, not to be revealed because of fear for his life. If he openly proclaimed such teaching he would be arrested and tried for blasphemy. His mission would be interrupted; he would not be able to complete his work on earth.

If the claim is made that Jesus could not teach publicly about his messiahship, and if the further claim is made that he taught it privately to his apostles, we naturally ask why the gospel record does not show it. Did the writers of the gospels live under the same constraints as Jesus? Were they also not able to discuss it for fear of their lives?

The last suggestion is not reasonable. The gospels probably were written at times and places where such fears were no longer real. The four books show Jesus as the Messiah. If they were written under fear they would not have been so explicit. Yet they contain nothing of Jesus' teaching on the Messiah.

We cannot believe the writers of the gospels feared making a record of Jesus' teaching. They recorded other matters that were objectionable to Jewish authorities and Jewish belief, John 4:42, 8:41. They proclaim Jesus to be the Messiah. The great difference is that they proclaim the belief; they state outright he was. But they do not show his personal instruction.

Mark is the most brief of the four gospels, and the most simple in its style and exposition. Biblical scholars believe the earliest date for that gospel was 55 to 60 AD. They also believe the book was written in Rome or some distant city. If this opinion is correct why would Mark fear to discuss Jesus' teaching?

The gospel of Matthew is made up of three elements; these are known as the M, the Q, and the Mark. The entire gospel of Mark is included in Matthew except for fifty-five verses. The Q element contains portions also found in Luke. The M element contains portions not found in the other gospels.

The Book of Matthew is more polished and more coherent in its structure than Mark. Therefore, scholars believe the writer spent more time and more care in forming it. Since it contains most of Mark, scholars believe the writer borrowed from Mark. Mark could not have borrowed from Matthew; if he had he would display the greater polish and style of Matthew. Also, why would Mark remove large sections from the Matthew document if he borrowed from Matthew? Based on these facts and deductions Matthew must have been written after Mark. Since time would be required for the writing of Mark to circulate, most scholars believe that Matthew was written after the destruction of the Jewish nation in 70 AD.

The writer of Matthew may not have been a personal apostle. Perhaps he was unaware of Jesus' teaching on the Messiah. If Mark did not write about it, and if he borrowed from Mark it would not show in those portions. But what of the Q and M portions? If they came from other sources were those sources also lacking in such teaching? And how could any person, displaying such devotion to Jesus, personal apostle or not, avoid such an important subject?

The problem is even more severe when considering John. Of all the apostles John was the most intimate with Jesus, the "one whom Jesus loved," John 13:3, 20:2 and 21:7. John was always one of those elected to be alone with Jesus on special occasions, Matt 17:1, Mark 9:2, 13:33, Luke 8:51, 9:28, and so on. If Jesus had explicitly taught that he was the Messiah John would have known about it. Scholars believe John wrote his gospel toward the end of the century when he was an old man and far removed from the events of the earlier persecutions. He should have had no fear about such teaching. But he does not report it in his book.

The record shows the apostles looked forward expectantly to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. Luke 9:46-48 and Mark 9:33-35 record an argument about who would be preferred in the coming kingdom. Jesus quickly dampens their fond hopes; he tells them that the greatest shall be least and the least greatest. Matt 20:20-28 and Mark 10:35-45 record a request by the Zebedee brothers, James and John, that they be placed at his right and left hand, directly beneath him and second in command. They desired highest authority in his coming glory. Although they meant earthly glory in the coming kingdom Jesus tells them this glory was reserved and appointed by the Father in the heavenly kingdom. They cannot share in such appointment. These responses by Jesus illustrate that he was not building a kingdom on earth; his kingdom was in heaven. When he stood before Pilate he stated explicitly that his kingship was not of this world, John 19:36. Later he tells them they will share in that heavenly kingdom; they will judge the twelve tribes of Israel, Matt 19:27-30, Mark 10:28-31 and Luke 18:28-30. But this is in a future age in the heavenly places after they have achieved eternal life.

The Messiah will rule on earth; Jesus said he rules in heaven.

From the absence of evidence we must conclude that Jesus did not teach he was the Messiah. He did not merely neglect it; he intentionally avoided it. His question to the apostles about what the people said showed his desire that they not teach he was the Messiah.

If they believed Jesus was the Messiah they probably would have waited expectantly for him to proclaim his rulership. This would have heightened their memory of any chance remark. Any occasion on which Jesus would discuss his messiahship probably would have been etched on their minds. They would not forget. But of the gospel record only three cases are recorded where he admits being the Messiah; two of those are to strangers and not to his personal apostles, and those two are unsupported in the other gospels.

There is only one logical conclusion; early Christians knew of no such teaching. It did not exist. Hence, it remained unrecorded.

This conclusion is strengthened when we recognize the importance of such teaching to Christian belief. It is the most important single element in Jesus' life for interpretation of Old Testament prophecies and for the future expectation of this world. It could not be ignored. If Jesus taught he was the Messiah the gospel record would show it.

In view of these facts how do we reconcile the three cases where he admits he is the Messiah? Why would he admit it privately to a Samaritan woman and not admit it directly to the apostles, John 4:25-26? Some believe he could say this in Samaria, outside the domain of the Jewish rulers, but that he could not admit it in Judea where he might be arrested and executed for blasphemy. However, such explanation is forced; it is tailored to answer the problem.

The other occasion when Jesus admits being the Messiah is to Caiaphas the high priest, Mark 14:62. But the writer of Matthew, who had to know the Mark text if he borrowed it directly, does not include this important admission in his version of the account. It does not seem possible he would let pass such an important reply. He could not ignore such a momentous remark. Therefore we must conclude that he did not believe Jesus made the remark and left it out of his record. Instead he puts Jesus' reply in a frame which displays more familiar knowledge and more realistic portrayal of that scene. Jesus never admitted he was the Messiah to Caiaphas; he merely said, "You say so."

The scene with Caiaphas is important.

Again the accounts differ in their details. Refer Matt 26:57-68, Mark 14:53-65, Luke 22:66-71, and John 18:13-14, 19-24.

We should recall that the Jewish nation was in a precarious position with Roman authorities. The Zealots were provocative; a generally rebellious mood existed among the Jews. The Jewish rulers were concerned that turmoil and upheaval would threaten opportunities for independence or bring even greater repression by the Romans. Therefore, the work of Jesus was of great concern to them. Caiaphas had remarked that it was better for one man to die than the whole nation perish, John 18:14. When Jesus was brought before the council Caiaphas asked Jesus about his doctrines and his teaching. Jesus replied that his teaching was all done openly, in the synagogues and in the temple where all the Jews gathered. Why should the high priest have to ask him; why did he not ask those who had listened to him, John 18:19-21?

Here Jesus plainly states that he had no secret doctrines or teachings. All that he taught was known publicly. He did not teach he was the Messiah.

The trial continued with witnesses brought to deny Jesus' veracity. Many of these had been employed to bear false testimony but they could not agree with one another. Two or three stated that Jesus claimed he could destroy the temple of God and build it again in three days. To this Jesus answered nothing; he knew a defense was useless. However, the witnesses may have misunderstood remarks made by Jesus. If he spoke about himself being the temple of God, and being able to raise it again in three days, they may have understood this to mean the temple of Herod. In this respect they were honest, although mistaken. Refer Matt 26:60-61, Mark 14:57-58.

Caiaphas asks Jesus if he had any response to the testimony. Jesus remains silent. Caiaphas then asks him if he is the Messiah, the Son of God. But the question is not a mild one, asked as a formality to obtain an unexpected confession from Jesus, or to bait him into blasphemy. The high priest was truly concerned that Jesus might be the Messiah. He said, "I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Messiah, the Son of God."

Caiaphas had reasons to be concerned. If Jesus was truly the Messiah he could not be condemned to death. There could remain no doubt about Jesus. When Jesus replies, "You say so," and when he further replies that thereafter they will see him sitting at the right hand of power in the clouds of heaven, Caiaphas no longer fears. The Messiah rules on earth, not in heaven. This man claims to be God. The answer is true blasphemy; he must be condemned to death.

Psalm 2:

Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh and his Messiah . . . I will tell of the decree of Yahweh: He said, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage . . ."

The translations render the Hebrew word meshiach as "anointed" rather than Messiah. KJV renders this word as Messiah only in Dan 9:25 and 26. RSV is consistent with "anointed" wherever the word appears. The reason for using anointed rather than Messiah is simple; the word does not always mean the Messiah. See Isa 45:1. Interpretation of the passages depends upon human judgment.

Psalm 2 is instructive.

1. Yahweh has a Son. He is a divinely created Son. If Jesus is Yahweh this Son, this Messiah, is not Jesus.

2. He is a begotten Son. This may mean begotten in the heavenly creation sense. It also could mean begotten in the mortal earthly sense. If the latter it would mean the Messiah is to be born of an earth mother, as Jesus was born of an earth mother.

3. This Messiah is to assume earthly rulership. He will triumph over earthly rulers when they plot against him.

4. Yahweh will set his King on Zion, his holy hill. This holy hill could be the Mount of Assembly, the heavenly Mt. Zion. It also could be a special holy hill set aside on this planet for the ruler of this world. We cannot readily distinguish the intent from the context, although it suggests an earthly mountain.

This Psalm is a main support for the belief that Jesus is the Messiah. It was used by the writer of the Book of Hebrews, Heb 1:5, 5:5. It was used by Luke in Acts 4:25-26 and 13:33. When Jesus spoke of himself as the Son of God the apostles were immediately reminded of this Psalm. According to the accounts the voice out of heaven at the time of his baptism confirmed this view, Matt 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22. All Christians believe the Psalm is a prediction of Jesus.

But if Jesus is Yahweh, all apostles, all disciples, and all Christians have been wrong.

Jesus did not take up earthly rulership. He refused to be made king. He told Pilate his kingship was not of this world.

If Jesus is this begotten Son; if he is the fulfillment of the prediction of this Psalm; and if he did not fulfill the prophecy while he lived here as a man, then he must return to fulfill it. There is no other choice. But if he is not the Messiah, and since no divine Son has appeared to fulfill it, the Messiah is yet to come.

We can understand why Jews would be unwilling to accept Jesus as the Messiah. They looked for someone who would assume earthly kingship. But Jesus refused earthly rulership. He claimed heavenly rulership.

Remember also that if Jesus is the Son of Psalm 110, and if he is to rule this world, he must return as a Melchizedek. Again we ask, how many Melchizedeks are Creator Sons?

This problem afflicts other prophecies of the Messiah. Isaiah 9 is a precious one for both Jews and Christians.

For to us a child is born, and to us a Son is given. The government will be upon his shoulders. His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end. Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of Yahweh of hosts will do this.

The similarities to Psalm 2 are evident.

1. A child will be born; a Son will be given. This individual will be born of an earth mother. Since Jesus was a divine Son born of an earth mother it is natural to assume this passage refers to Jesus.

2. The government will be upon his shoulders. The phrase suggests a worldwide government, an earthly rule to which all the kings of this planet will be subject.

3. He will rule upon the throne of David. The rulership will come out of the Davidic line, from the Jews. This personality will be born among the Jews and will assume rulership over the world. Since Jesus was born a Jew it is natural again to assume the passage refers to him.

These facts made it imperative for the early gospel writers to establish that Jesus was descended from David. He could not fulfill the prophecies without that genealogical connection. An attempt to trace Jesus' genealogy is found in Matthew and Luke, but the two lists are not compatible. Christians have attempted to reconcile the lists for two thousand years with many ingenious explanations, but without success. Practically speaking, they remain a puzzle; it seems reasonable to consider them artifices, designed to offer proof of Jesus' descent from David.

Mark and John do not solidly indicate that Jesus was descended from David, although Mark reports how the people proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah, the son of David, when he entered Jerusalem for the last time, Mark 11:10. John shows the debate surrounding Jesus and how some persons claimed him to be the Messiah although others could not accept his origins in Galilee, John 7:40-43. Paul definitely accepted him as the Messiah descended from David, Rom 1:3, II Tim 2:8.

4. There will be no end to the increase of his government. This rulership will go on forever, increasing in righteousness and justice. Since Jesus did not take up rulership when he lived here as a man he must return to fulfill this promise. However, the prophecy implies a Son sitting on an earthly throne. If Jesus is the Creator, and if he returns, he would be a Mighty God, but it seems difficult to understand how he would become an earthly ruler. As Creator he would rule forever, as the prophecy says, but why would his rule be limited to this small earth. Who would rule the heavenly realms?

5. There will be no end of peace. This part of the prophecy also has not been fulfilled. The world today has entered the most degraded social and moral conditions, with the worst conflict, warfare, and turmoil, of any time in history. Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars. How, then, could Jesus have fulfilled the prophecy? Again, if Jesus is the one to rule he must return to renovate the earth and bring everlasting peace to the planet.

However, there is another difficulty. Jesus said he did not come to bring peace, Luke 12:49-53. His remarks are counter to his fulfilment of the prophecy. Again he denies his role as the Messiah; again Jews reject him.

6. A list of titles is used for this personality:

a) Wonderful: His rule will be righteous and just. b) Counselor: Many will consult him for benefit of his great wisdom. (In some translations this word is tied to the next phrase to make him "Counselor to the Mighty God.")

c) Mighty God: The term is difficult. The Hebrew phrase is El G'bor. It could be understood in the same sense Paul used the god of this world, II Cor 4:4. It also may be used in the sense of the many gods and many lords in the heavenly places. This personality would be one of those many gods and many lords. He is a mighty god among the heavenly gods. In this sense he would be a mighty god, but not Mighty God.

e) Prince of Peace: Jesus, as benevolent Creator, works for peace throughout his dominions. This personality, reigning with righteousness and justice, would reign in peace. As a divine being he also would be a Prince of Peace.

If we change our perspective from a single divine Son and a host of angels to many divine Sons we see how our views on the Messiah become altered. But it means an elevation in vision, an enlargement of concept. It means a mind willing to reexamine the scriptures. It does not mean a tampering with the scriptures; on the contrary it means an honest examination not performed by the children of God over the past two thousand years. It means new revelation from the old revelations, a new understanding of God and his ways. But if we are fearful, if we tremble to break the chains of habit of many generations, if we are weak and irresolute, we will not discover the mysteries sought so avidly by so many for so long.

Other prophecies on the Messiah are found in Ps 18:50, 20:6 and so on. Psalm 72 is especially important. It confirms the everlasting reign of this great King. He will live as long as the sun endures and as long as the moon, throughout all generations. The generations of man will flow over ages of time. In his days there will be righteousness flourishing and peace abounding, till the moon is no more! He will have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. There will be abundance of grain; the tops of the mountains will wave with it. Men will blossom forth from the cities like the grass of the fields. His name will endure forever and his fame as long as the sun. Men will bless themselves by him, and all nations shall be blessed. Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel who alone does these wonderful things.

Further insight is offered by Isaiah 11. This individual shall come forth from a shoot of Jesse, David's father; a branch shall grow out of his roots. He shall live at a time when the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion together. Then a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed together, their young shall lie down together, the lion shall eat straw like an ox, and the sucking child shall play upon the hole of an asp. They shall neither hurt nor destroy in all his holy mountain. In those days the earth shall be full of the glory of the knowledge of Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea.

Obviously this is an era never before seen upon earth. It will be most wonderful, blessed in peace.

Again we can see why Jews could not accept Jesus as the Messiah, and why Christians look forward to his return. There are many prophecies yet to be fulfilled. Note also how Christians compress these great prophecies covering major spans of time into one short millennial period.

Psalm 110 is the most important for identifying the Messiah, and deserves repeating.

"Yahweh sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your foes!

"Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains.

"From the womb of the morning the dew of your youth will come to you.

"Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

The promise of the Psalm is evident. The one who will receive the right of earthly rule is Melchizedek. He will be the Messiah. The phrases show the setting is the earth, this planet, explicitly stated in verse six, and implied by the execution of judgment among the nations.

Yahweh will execute the judgment; he will shatter kings and fill the nations with corpses. He will do this while the Messiah reigns upon the earth. The Messiah will reign in the midst of the rebellious kings of the earth. His people will give themselves freely for this final victory.

It is plain from the Psalm that the Messiah rules while trouble and conflict still exist on this planet. He does not rule in peace during the episodes described here. Everlasting peace comes after these final judgment events.

The Psalm suggests a being who is in mortal form; the Messiah is not in spirit form. He must come in human birth if to us a son is born, and if to us a child is given. He grows up to become a man. We also know he is of divine origins; he is a high priest forever. He is not of earthly origin, although he will be born of a woman, as Jesus was born of a woman.

From the other promises we know his rule will continue far into the future, as long as the sun and the moon. He will take over permanent rulership of this planet.

If Jesus is not this Melchizedek then this Melchizedek might be the one who lived and worked with Abraham. But if the two Melchizedeks are the same personality we have a problem of two different occasions of physical existence on earth, as we would have if Jesus were the Messiah.

If the Melchizedek of Gen 14 is the same as Psalm 110 he probably came at the time of Abraham to help prepare this world for the future. The preparation may have included teaching to stimulate an appropriate religious environment for the arrival of Jesus. His purpose also may have been to begin a program of planetary salvation with the people of Israel. After that visit he returned to the celestial worlds.

That program continued with Moses and the prophets. When Jesus lived here he added further support to the work of his created divine Son, this Melchizedek. Jesus helped by teaching new concepts. He taught us about the Father, a new way of looking at God, and in so doing he prepared our minds for loftier concepts of universe creation and planetary destiny. But he did not fully explain his role, nor that of Melchizedek. It was not yet time to inform us of these matters. The world had to grow; changes had to take place. The full number of Gentiles has now come in. Now, in the fullness of time, these matters become known.

John made a curious remark about the trumpet call of the seventh angel, Rev 11:15. There were loud voices saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever."

All other uses of the word Lord in the Book of Revelation are understood to mean Jesus. But here it would be necessary to understand the word Lord as referring to the Father if his Christ is Jesus. On the other hand if this Lord is Jesus, then his Christ is Melchizedek, as was promised.

We must be careful not to confuse the actions of Melchizedek and Jesus. Jesus is the Creator, the sponsor of planetary programs. Melchizedek is the agent, the executor of those programs. He, Melchizedek, is the servant for the Master, Jesus. If Jesus is the sponsor his earthly life would reflect that program; it would be consonant with the action he started as our Creator God.

However, that was not the primary purpose of Jesus' life. He came down here to make himself man, that he could be both man and God, and that he could learn and experience the ways of man to become a more merciful God. He loves us and gave himself for us. He wants us to love him. He watches over us as a considerate brother and loving father.

The Messiah will come to rule this world, as Jews so expectantly await. He lived here once before, at the time of Abraham. He will return as a babe of the world, just as Jesus was a babe of the world. Then a new era will be established. But that new era is in the future.