I learned something interesting today in Sunday School (which my pastor teaches): The term "Son of God," in the Old Testament (as well in the Apocrapha, during the Intertestamental Period), seldom referred to the coming Messiah. (It occasionally did--but not often.)

Rather, it usually referred to the (quite secular) kings of the time--not only in Israel (prior to the Judges), but throughout the Middle East.

That is because they required some sort of legitimacy. And since there was no democracy at the time--they were not actually elected by the people--it was believed that they were blessed with a divine imprimatur of sorts (what we would later know as "The Divine Right of Kings").

In other words, they were believed to rule simply because God had chosen them to do so.

Interesting...

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

With all due respect to your pastor the word "messiah" may not be mentioned frequently, but the savior is referenced throughout the old testament prophecy books including Isaiah such as "Behold, my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." (Isaiah 42:1).


Jesus was called Yeshua
The name יֵשׁוּעַ‎ "Yeshua" (transliterated in the English Old Testament as Jeshua) is a late form of the Biblical Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ Yehoshua (Joshua), and spelled with a waw in the second syllable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua


Simon Peter was the first to call Jesus that name when found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed).
but if you read the prophesy books you will find the references to Him.
as good Christians we are almost always called to submit to our leaders however they were picked.
the 'divine right of kings' is more of a man made idea put forth by the medieval catholic church and the kings themselves. kings all the way through the enlightenment period in history (the Louis of France, ) up to Martin Luther.

__________________

masked, social, it is TIME for each individual to have a space heater

Is it probable they also realized that the so-and-so "king" had the power, usually in the form of wealth, to pay an armed force to subjugate his chosen subjects? Usually by first disarming them, I'll bet.

No argument there.

He was just saying that the specific term, "Son of God"--in the Old Testament, as well as in the Apocrypha--does not often refer to the coming messiah.

Yes, this is taken from the Tetragrammaton, "YHWH", with the vowels filled in arbitrarily; which gives us Yahweh. (The Latinized version is Jehovah.)

The doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings" was, indeed, popular during the medieval period.

But through what other method would the ancient kings have widely been considered legitimate?

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

Did your pastor give a few Biblical references for his remarks?

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

No.

He is really not a biblicist--but a theologian (in the broadest sense of the word).

And he has a very deep knowledge of history (not only biblical history, but secular history, as well).

Note: I enjoy the study of history very much; but he easily exceeds my knowledge, in this area.

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

So he wasn't really talking about the biblical use of the term. Just his understanding of the term's use OUTSIDE of the biblical text in the middle east during that era.

Well OK that's fine and an interesting bit of info, But it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the use of he term in the biblical text OT and NT.
There it's contextualized in a different way.
Even the various words for "God" in area and overtime have had several shades of application. In that historical context and in the surrounding areas of the time as well as different meanings biblically in various context.

But sure, in many parts of the world the rulers claimed some kind of Devine heritage. But that status waxed and waned over time and sometimes overnight if they were defeated or overthrown. Even the Romans turned dead Leaders into "gods" after a while.

In a similar vien there where many other people who's name was Jesus during the 1st century in the Middle East.
There where many other people who claimed to be messiah, savior, and the son of (a) god(s) or GOD outright then and throughout history and up totoday.

The fact there are imposters and versions in other context is not something that really adds to or detracts from who Jesus is. In one sense it could be looked at as a study in contrast. If someone comes up and shows you his Rusted VW Beatle but calls it a brand new Rolls Royce that doesn't make the Rolls Royce a Beatle or the Beatle a Rolls Royce. If everyone in the world commonly calls rusted out VW Beatles, "Rolls Royce's" it doesn't make them one.


anyway a few scriptures come to mind here.

John 3
...For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son....


John 10
...Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”....

Mark 14
...Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need?...

1 John 5
...Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son....

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

I would hasten to suggest that most "Kings and royalty" were progeny of "Kings and royalty" that at one point in time were chosen or chose to rise and conquer. For the most part, they received their Devine Right of Kingship by family endowment, through generations, not divine intervention. The birthright was kept not by divinity but subjugation.

Between religion and the royalty there existed a supposed "divine" alliance which kept the common man ( and woman) basically enslaved. In most cases, living in a caste system of inequality always at the pleasure of the royal /church alliances.

As with politics today, it was about power, not divinity. Which in truth ironically, was a lie. Said another way, for millennia's, same sh!t, different day.

And for millennia's s, mankind has historically given up freedom for security. And did so by accepting the concept of another human person, having absolute power over them. Individual freedom, a divine right of it's own recognition, has never lasted long.

__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Mostly in the beginning (thinking of France and England or other western cultures), the king gained his strength from big land owners and drew a standing army from them. the king couldn't tick off the Lords or else they would depose him and find another king. when kings started confiscating their own land or being gifted it they eventually sometimes through violence started to control more vast amounts of real estate.
the church owned a lot till henry the eighth got the hots for Anne Bolin and he broke from Catholicism, taking also much power.
bloody Mary not withstanding his last ruling child, Elizabeth, financed pirates to add Spanish gold to her coffers.
I don't know who's idea it was to perpetrate the myth of Elizabeth I as the reincarnated Arthur of round table fame but she certainly didn't do anything to dispute it. To this day, the ruling family of the UK owns more property than anyone else in the kingdom.

The French
bishop Bossuet (1627–1704), was a theorists who asserted that "the king's person and authority were sacred; that his power was modeled on that of a father's and was absolute, deriving from God; and that he was governed by reason (i.e., custom and precedent)" He probably did this at the behest of his king and benefactor. so it was politics plus greed.


As for Egyptians' and Romans' monarchs , they were worshiped outright as Gods since Christianity had not yet come into existence. How Jews maintained their faith and lives under those rulers is a testament to the protection of God Almighty, since these were complete rulers with every authority over life and death.

__________________

masked, social, it is TIME for each individual to have a space heater

perhaps where for all practical purposes the Devine right began was with Charlemagne:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

__________________

masked, social, it is TIME for each individual to have a space heater