The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

It would appear at first glance that the devil could not be the antichrist(s), (I know better), but since he has acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God, where does this stand in the grand scheme of things redemptivily speaking?

“that this is the Son of God” This same title is used by Nathanael in John 1:49. It is also used by Satan in Matt. 4:3. There is an interesting Greek manuscript variant found in MSS P5 and m* which has “the Chosen One of God” instead of “the Son of God.” The phrase “Son of God” is common in John. But, if one follows the rational tenets of textual criticism, then the most awkward and unusual wording is probably original then there is at least a possibility of the alternate translation even though the manuscript witness is limited. Gordon Fee discusses this textual variant in his article “The Textual Criticism of the New Testament” pp. 419–433 in the introductory volume to The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
“In John 1:34, did John the Baptist say, ‘This is the Son of God’ (KJV, RSV) or ‘This is God’s Chosen One’ (NEB, JB)? The MS evidence is divided, even among the early text-types. ‘Son’ is found in the key Alexandrian witnesses (P66, P75, B, C, L copbo) as well as in several OL (aur, c, flg) and the later Syriac witnesses, while ‘chosen One’ is supported by the Alexandrian P5, m, copsa as well as the OL MSS a,b,e,ff2, and the Old Syriac.
“The question must finally be decided on internal grounds. As to transcriptional probability, one thing is clear: the variant is intentional, not accidental (cf. Bart D. Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, pp. 69–70). But did a second century scribe alter the text to support a kind of adoptionist Christology, or did an orthodox scribe sense the possibility that the designation ‘Chosen One’ might be used to support adoptionism, and so alter it for orthodox reasons? In terms of probabilities, the latter seems far more likely, especially since ‘the Son’ is not changed elsewhere in the Gospel to fit adoptionist views.
“But the final decision must involve exegesis. Since what John the Baptist said was almost certainly intended to be messianic and not a statement of Christian theology, the question is whether it reflects the messianism of such a passage as Psalm 2:7 or that of Isaiah 42:1. In light of the suffering, or paschal, lamb motif of John 1:29, it is surely arguable that ‘Chosen One’ fits the context of the Gospel” (pp. 431–432).

Kola

also, acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God is not just saying the words ... anyone can say the words (as we see in the Gospel records where Jesus drives out demons).

Rather it means acknowledging from the heart, mind, soul, and body - the whole person. It also involves surrender and obedience to the Lord who is acknowledged.