5. The Son of God

The Church is to be built on this central bedrock (petra) of the identity of Jesus: You are the Messiah, the son of God (Mt 16:15-19). Jesus is not just any ordinary human Messiah, but he is “the son of God”. Since the Bible tells us that Jesus is “the son of God”, then why do the churches tell us that Jesus is “God the Son”? The doctrine of Trinity reverses the Messianic title from “the son of God” (ὁ υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ) to “God the Son” (Θεός ὁ υἱός). Do these two titles mean the same thing? The biblical Jesus is “the son of God” – God’s son. Trinitarians change the identity of Jesus by giving him the divine title “God the Son” who is a co-equal member in the Godhead. The term “God the Son” does not exist in the Bible. Christianity has departed from the truth of God’s word by putting “God the Son” as the central figure of the Christian faith. How can “God the Son” save us when he is not in the Bible?

The title “the son of God” occurs about 41 times in the New Testament. This title refers to Jesus, except for one verse that points to Adam as “the son of God”.

Luke traces the lineage of Jesus through many generations, ultimately connecting his ancestry to Adam, the first human being created by God. Adam is referred to as “the son of God”, not due to a direct biological connection, but it was a title bestowed upon him to denote his unique relationship as God’s son. To be a “son of God” is simply God’s son. The term “son of God” never means that the son is God. Certainly, Adam is a human being, not a deified being.

Israel, as a nation, was called God’s son. Israel was favored by God and chosen to be the firstborn son. Being God’s son did not elevate them to the level of God, but rather, as the firstborn, they were given special rights and privileges over all other nations. Israel is beloved of God. We should all love the Jewish people because of their special place in the Father’s heart.

“The sons of God” here refer to angels, who have direct access to God in the heavenly places. Angels are not deities, but spiritual beings created by God. There are two kinds of angelic beings: the fallen ones that have rebelled against God, and the holy ones who are “ministering spirits sent out to serve those who are to inherit salvation” (Heb 1:14 cf. Mt 25:31; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26).

God said that He would be a father to Solomon. Not only was Solomon David’s son, but more importantly, he was God’s son. To be God’s son in no way elevated Solomon to the level of God. Not only was he “a son”, but Yahweh called him personally “my son”. This special status was given to king Solomon so that he could be God’s representative to rule Israel. God also promised to establish the throne of his kingdom forever (2Sam 7:13). This Father-son relationship foreshadowed the future Messiah, who would be the representative King of Israel. However, Solomon failed tragically as God’s son, while the Messiah, as God’s son, succeeded and will return to sit on David’s throne to rule on behalf of God forever. (See Psalm 2).

Christians are born of God. They are given the great privilege to be adopted as “sons of God” through faith in Jesus Christ. When we get baptized, born of water and the spirit, we are born into God’s family and become His sons.

Oh, what great love our Father has lavished on us that we should be called sons of God. What great riches are ours as God’s sons! We belong to God’s family and have the hope of inheriting God’s Kingdom. Sonship has to do with being heirs. Jesus, the son of God, is the firstborn, the first heir of God. As sons of God, we are heirs of God, and fellow heirs with Christ, our elder brother.

Conclusion: “The son of God” in the Bible is not a divine title. The Bible speaks of different individuals being “sons of God” or God’s son. To be a “son of God”, one has to be a separate individual other than God. None of these passages imply that being a son of God is a deified being.

Understanding the biblical meaning of “the son of God” is crucial, as this title is attributed to Jesus about 40 times in the New Testament.

When the title “the son of God” is used in reference to Jesus, it is sometimes used in conjunction with the title “the Messiah”. “The son of God” is a synonymous title for “the Messiah”.

The term “Messiah” originated in the Hebrew Scriptures. When translating the New Testament into various languages, translators had to decide whether to use “Messiah” or “Christ” to convey the meaning of the Greek term Χριστός (Christos). The terms “Christ” and “the Messiah” carry the same meaning as “the anointed one”. In this article, when I quote the Bible references, I occasionally replace the word “Christ” with “the Messiah” to highlight Jesus’ role as the anointed one. The Messiah, the anointed king, is also the anointed son of God.

The disciples in the New Testament confessed Jesus as “the son of God”, and not “God the Son”, a term that was unheard of in the first century world. To say Jesus was “the son of God” meant that Jesus was the promised king Messiah. Let’s not change the Gospel message and call people to believe Jesus as “God the Son”. Rather, Jesus is the Messiah, “the son of God”. “God the Son” does not point to the Messiah Jesus but to the Trinitarian Jesus.

In the Gospel accounts, many people bore witness to the truth that Jesus was the “son of God”.

In the context of these verses, the title “the son of God” points to Jesus’ supreme position as God’s son, the promised Messiah who came to fulfill God’s plan of redemption and establish God’s kingdom. Even the unclean spirits and demons got the title “the son of God” correct. The devil specifically used this Messianic title to tempt Jesus in the wilderness: “If you are the son of God …” (Mt 4:3, 6; Lk 4:3, 9). The devil did not doubt Jesus’ sonship to God, because he knew Jesus came to be the Messianic king, and not as God incarnate.[3] Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness to make him exploit his powerful status as “the son of God”. But Jesus did not succumb to the devil’s trap, which aimed to hinder him from fulfilling his Messianic mission.

Conclusion: When the people in the first century recognized Jesus as “the son of God”, they reckoned that he was the unique son appointed by God to be His Messiah. None of the “son of God” passages imply that Jesus is an eternal son or a divine God. By reversing the Messianic title to “God the Son”, the Trinity doctrine completely destroys the salvific mission of the Messiah. “God the Son” is the Trinitarian Jesus, not the Biblical Jesus.

Jesus was specifically declared to be the son of God in power at the time of his resurrection. Does this mean that Jesus, as the son of God, turned into a divine being at resurrection?

(1) The Greek verb for “declared” is “ὁρισθέντος” (horisthentos) in the aorist, participle, passive mood, carrying the meaning of “determine, fix, set, appoint, designate, declare” (BDAG). Yahweh God was the one in action. By resurrecting Jesus from the dead, God designated the Messiah, the son of God in power, through the work of the Spirit. Resurrection was not merely coming back to life, but significant events happened at the resurrection that Jesus was declared to be the son of God in power.

(2) Jesus was a son of God before resurrection, but the resurrection was a pivotal event when God exalted his son to be Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). After accomplishing the Messianic work of redemption on the cross, God enthroned His son with power in glory to act as Lord and King Messiah. Jesus is now the risen Lord and exalted King Messiah, the son of God seated at the right hand of his Father.

(3) Lordship and kingship have nothing to do with Jesus becoming “God”. Jesus did not become a spirit after the resurrection. He is the exalted man who sits alongside God in a glorified body (Heb 1:3, 12:2; 1Pet 3:22; Acts 7:55-56). After resurrection, Jesus was fully aware that God had given him full authority to act in heaven and on earth (Mt 28:18). The fact that Jesus is now functioning in his new status with divine authority might give the impression that he is God, but he is not God. He sits next to God. God delegated His divine authority to Jesus to rule on his behalf. In his new exalted status, Jesus is Lord of the Church, not God of the Church. In the future, he will return to earth as the King Messiah, taking his seat on the Davidic throne to rule over all nations.

(4) Jesus, as the son of God in power, fully represents His Father to execute His will.

The son is fully worthy of representing his Father. The Greek word for “exact imprint” is “χαρακτὴρ” (charaktēr), from which the English word “character” is derived. The Greek word has the meaning of “reproduction, exact representation” (BGAD). In ancient Greco-Roman times, people used engraving stamps to mark coins or pottery. Some English versions render “χαρακτὴρ” to “exact expression” (HCSB), “exact representation” (NIV, NASB), “perfect copy” (ERV), “exact likeness” (ISV), and “bears the very stamp” (RSV). Different versions try to express the idea of the son being a perfect copy or a replica of his Father. He doesn’t replace the Father, but he is exactly like his Father. When you see the son, you see God. The son does not play two roles. He is not the son and God at the same time. He is not a son-God or a God-son. He is a son, the son of God.

In the exposition of Hebrews 1, Greg Deuble says it ever more clearly, “In NT understanding then, this word character conveys that which is a copy, a reproduction which portrays the original it represents. The idea is that the Son of God is the perfect “replica” of God’s nature. Just as a seal leaves its very imprint on the wax, producing in every detail the shape of the original dye, the writer to the Hebrews says that Jesus is the exact representation of God’s essential nature. Clearly then, the Son is not the Original Who is none other but the one and only God Himself. All of God’s communicable attributes become manifest in Christ. If we wish to see God we must look at Jesus Christ.” [4]

Jesus usually referred to himself as “the son of man” (~85 times). However, on three occasions, Jesus explicitly claimed the title “the son of God” for himself. He never identified himself as “God the Son”, a term that would have been foreign to him. In fact, it was his opponents who misunderstood Jesus by charging him with blasphemy (making himself equal with God) in claiming the title “the son of God”. Jesus was the most misunderstood man on earth, as he never wanted to be God, at the level of God, or to be equal with God. He never wanted to be God in the first place. Ironically, today’s churches are making Jesus equal with God by insisting that he is “God the Son”, a co-equal member with the Father. Who is guilty of blasphemy?

Most commentators misinterpret this verse because they fail to read the passage in its entire context. The event started with the Jews accusing Jesus that he was “making himself equal with God” (v.18) to which Jesus denied their false allegations. The Jews were persecuting Jesus because he healed a blind man on Sabbath (v.16), and even calling God his Father (v.18). Jesus replied to them that he was only doing what the Father was doing as “he could do nothing on his own accord” (v.19). Jesus credited the healing to his Father for it was done under the authority of God. Some commentators blatantly say that Jesus is claiming to be God here. If we read the entire context of the passage, Jesus never elevated himself to the level of God, for he was always in a subordinate relationship, following what his Father wanted him to do.

To understand Jesus’ title as “the son of God”, the stress is not on the essence of Jesus, but always on his relationship with the Father. The entire passage repeatedly emphasizes a Father-son relationship, which is mentioned 7 times:

When Jesus claimed that he was “the son of God” in John 5:25, he was portraying how closely he, as a son, was working alongside his Father, representing the Father. Nowhere do these passages imply an eternal son relationship with the Father. When Jesus referred to God as his Father, he was not making himself equal with God. In fact, it shows the lower status of a son who is in submission to his father. Jesus was totally dependent on his Father all the time, for “I live because of the Father” (Jn 6:57).

In this second occurrence where Jesus identified himself as “the son of God”, he was accused of blaspheming for supposedly asserting himself as God. This passage is often misinterpreted due to a failure of grasping the context in which the event took place. At the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, the Jews gathered together in the temple and asked Jesus, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly” (v.24). Jesus told them he was the Messiah, but they did not believe. So, in response, as the son of God (a synonymous title for Messiah), he mentioned his Father 9 times of how he represented his Father. (Jn 10:25, 29, 29, 30, 32, 36, 37, 38, 38).

(1) Upon hearing Jesus calling God “my Father”, the Jews picked up the stones to stone him again, because “You, being a man, make yourself God.” (v.33) Commentators often misunderstand this verse and use it as the prooftext to say that Jesus is claiming himself to be God. The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because they did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and they took offence at Jesus for speaking at the authoritative level of the Father. But in the earlier verse 29, Jesus had already told them, “the Father is greater than all”, so how could it be possible that Jesus was elevating himself to the level of God? He was representing the Father when he spoke under His authority.

(2) When Jesus said that he and his Father are one (v.30), some commentators misinterpret this statement, suggesting that Jesus claimed to be God through his union with the Father. The oneness with the Father does not indicate that Jesus is asserting himself as God. The union with the Father is not an exclusive one, but one that is open to all disciples. He prayed to the Father “that they may be one, even as we are one” (Jn 17:11). This union is an open union that even includes future disciples. “And I do not ask on behalf of these only, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, that they all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me. And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, in order that they may be one, just as we are one.” (Jn 17:20-22) When Jesus said that he and his Father are one, it means that he was united with the Father in doing His will. For us, this oneness with the Father occurs when our wills are united with Him. The motto of Jesus’ life: “Not my will, but yours be done.” (Lk 22:42)

(3) Following the context of the passage in John 10, Jesus continued to say, Is it not written in your law, ‘I said “You are gods”?’ (v.34) Some Christians misunderstand this verse thinking that Jesus is claiming himself to be God. Jesus cited from Psalm 82 where the judges of Israel were given a place of authority to act as “gods” (elohim). These judges stood in the place of ‘elohim’, as God’s executive agents to administer God’s will. They were not “God” but they exercised judgment as if they were God. Jesus reasoned with the Jews that if God gave these unjust judges the authority to act as ‘gods’, then why would they consider it blasphemy that he called himself “the son of God”? Jesus was not even saying “I am the God” but “the son of God”. The crux of the matter is that if these unjust judges were God’s agents and could be called ‘gods’, how much more so for Jesus since he perfectly represented the Father, which the unjust judges failed to do. “The Scripture cannot be broken” (v.35). Jesus spoke on behalf of God, affirming his authority to communicate God’s message. The Father consecrated and sent him into the world. By claiming he was “the son of God”, Jesus had no intention of making any claim of deity, but only that he represented the Father in all his words.

(4) Jesus was directing his opponents’ attention to his relationship with the Father, asserting that God was the witness of the works he did (v.25). Jesus distinguished himself from God when he continued to talk about his Father. If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me (v.37). 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 am in the Father. (v.38) The works that Jesus did marked him out to be the promised Messiah, because his works were done under the authority of his Father.

(5) To say that the Father is in him and he in the Father does not imply that Jesus is taking the place of God. The son is not substituting the Father at all. This union with his Father does not mean that the son has become Yahweh or that Yahweh is the son. As “the son of God”, Jesus was under the order of the Father to do His works. As the son of God, he lived in total love and obedience to his Father such that their relationship was so united in will that the Father was in him and he in the Father (v.38). The oneness signified that Yahweh could freely work through His son without hindrance to accomplish His eternal purposes for the world.

(6) In the entire context of the passage, Jesus was actually responding to the earlier question of whether he was “the Christ” in John 10:24. Jesus consistently said that it was the Father dwelling in him to enable him to do all the miraculous works. He was simply representing the Father in all his deeds. His authority stemmed from his unique identity as the son of God. In his oneness with his Father, he could represent the Father perfectly. He was the son of God, the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, but the Jews did not believe him. They refused to listen to him and they sought to arrest him (v.39).

Jesus mentioned that Lazarus’ illness would not lead to death but that it was for God’s glory. Even when he raised Lazarus from the dead, such power did not originate from him inherently, but from the Father in him who acted. Jesus prayed, “Father I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” (vv. 41-42) It was the Father who raised Lazarus through Jesus. He again directed the people to the Father to bring glory to God, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” (v.40)

The son of God was always concerned to bring people to glorify God, so that they could see that God “had given such authority to men” (Mt 9:8). In turn, the Father was always ready to glorify the son through the acts of miracles.

Conclusion: In the Bible, the term “the son of God” does not have the equivalence of “God” or “God the Son”. When Jesus identifies himself as “the son of God”, it means God is his Father, and he is His son. They share a very intimate Father-son relationship because “God was in Christ” performing all the miraculous signs and wonders. Christ never made himself equal with God.

The Jews’ accusation of Jesus making himself equal with God, is in fact what the Trinitarians are doing by insisting that Jesus is the second person, God the Son, co-equal with God. Who is guilty of blasphemy?

Nowhere did Jesus ever claim to be “God the Son”, but always “the son” or “the son of God.” He always submitted himself under his Father’s authority as he was always under the commands of God. Even regarding the hour of his return to earth, only the Father knows. If Jesus were all-knowing, he would be God, but he was (and is) the son, for “concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the son, but the Father only.” (Mt 24:36; Mk 13:32). The Father is superior to the son. But the Trinitarian Jesus makes Jesus to be “God the Son”, an eternal deity who is so self-independent that he is co-equal to the Father. In his self-sufficiency, he even replaces the Father as he does not need the Father. The Trinitarian Jesus becomes everything such that the Father is effectively obliterated.

The truth: The Bible always speaks of Jesus Christ as “the son”, or “the son of God”. The title “the son of God” always expresses a Father-Son relationship. Jesus, the Messiah, the son of God, represents his Father perfectly.

Jesus had such an intimate relationship with God that God announced openly on two occasions that Jesus was His beloved son.

The baptism was conducted publicly in the Jordan River. Can you picture how the Jews would have reacted when they saw the scene of the heavens opening up with the dove resting on Jesus?

Today, in the minds of Christians, they would think that this passage is about the Trinity: God (the first person) is talking to His Son (the second person) with the Holy Spirit (the third person) descending on Jesus. Would this have been in the minds of the Jews? We need to understand the Bible in the context of Jewish thoughts. The idea of a Trinity would not have been in the mind of the Jews in Jesus’ time.

Let’s try to understand this passage within the Jewish context of the 1^st Century world. The baptism of Jesus was an announcement from heaven by the Father. Right at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, the heavenly Father declared openly to the Jews that Jesus was His beloved son. The Jews who witnessed the baptism would have understood that this announcement was a Kingship proclamation by the Father. In the minds of the Jews, sonship and kingship were intertwined. The Davidic kings were often referred to as God’s son. For in the past, God had said, “I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son” (2Sam 7:14). This verse was spoken to David regarding his son Solomon. God always had in mind that when a descendant of David becomes the anointed king, God would proclaim him to be his son to rule as His representative king (cf. Psalm 2). But throughout history, Israel’s kings failed to carry out their tasks. The Jews then longed for the day when God’s appointed king would come to establish His Kingdom on earth.

When God proclaimed this decree at Jesus’ baptism, “This is my beloved Son”, the Jews would have understood that God was appointing Jesus to be the Messiah, the promised king from David’s line. The understanding of sonship and kingship carried significant messianic implications.

In the decree, this king held a special place in God’s divine favor, as he was called not only a son, but God’s beloved son. Notice how deeply the Father loved His son, addressing him as “my beloved”. The endearing title “my beloved son” took on a heightened messianic connotation, signifying God’s approval of Jesus as the anticipated anointed king to bring salvation to the people and to establish God’s Kingdom on earth. As God’s beloved son, Jesus would be the one to bring Israel back to live under God’s Kingship. The announcement also confirmed the fulfillment of the prophecy spoken by the prophet Isaiah: Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.” (cf. Isa 42:1; 49:1-7; Mt 12:15-18) The Spirit descended upon Jesus so that he was endowed with the Spirit. He would receive the gifts that were laid out for the Messiah in Isaiah 11:1-4.

When Jesus heard the decree made by his Father, he knew the Father was telling him directly that he was the chosen Son-Servant-King (See Psalm 2 & Isa 42) to save people and bring righteousness to all nations. Just as there were many angelic hosts bearing witness of this baptismal event in the heavenly court, there were Jesus, John, and many others bearing witness on earth. How I wish I was there too!

At Jesus’ baptism, God did not make an announcement about a Godhead having three persons. Much less was God saying that Jesus was “God the Son”. The focus was on the identity of Jesus as His beloved son, His chosen king to rule on His behalf. Jesus was anointed by God’s Spirit to undertake his office as the Messiah, and he would carry out his messianic role in the power of God’s Spirit as he began his public ministry.

Towards the end of Jesus’ ministry, God declared His decree openly again on the Mount of Transfiguration. Jesus was transfigured before his three trusted disciples. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. God’s glory was manifested through Jesus. While Moses and Elijah spoke with him about his departure (exodus), a cloud overshadowed them with God’s declaration regarding His Messiah: “This is my beloved Son, the chosen one”. The distinction in this event was that a command was conveyed in this decree: “Listen to him”.

The Father was not visible as he was present in the cloud. Just as Yahweh was in a pillar of cloud leading the Israelites through the wilderness, He assured the disciples that the same kind of presence would be with them. When Yahweh spoke to Moses in a thick cloud, the audible confirmation of God’s words served to establish Moses’ authority so that people could believe him forever (Exo 19:9). Likewise, in the transfiguration, God established Jesus’ unique authority as the Messiah, and the disciples were commanded to “listen to him”. Just as the Israelites were instructed to listen to Moses, Jesus’ disciples were commanded to heed Jesus’ words. The Jews at the time believed in Moses and followed his leadership, so the new instruction was to listen to Jesus and follow His teachings as the ultimate authority.

In the Jewish mind, the command, “listen to him” would bring into remembrance in Scripture regarding the prophet like Moses, “Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers – it is to him you shall listen” (Deut 18:15). Every Jew would have been able to associate the word “listen” to their daily prayer of the Shema, which means “Hear!”

The most crucial element in a disciple is to “listen to him!” These are the three most important words for followers who acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah. Do you listen to Jesus? The problem with most Christians is that they hear the truth from Jesus, but they do not make any response in the listening. They hear with their ears, but the words do not penetrate because they fail to listen with their hearts (cf. Isa 6:10). No actions are ever taken. There is a lot of inaction or passivity among the followers of Jesus. Many are totally disengaged even when they are studying the teachings of Jesus. Spiritually, there are a lot of blockages in their hearts to prevent them from listening. “Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but see not, who have ears, but hear not.” (Jer 5:21) May God heal our deaf ears.

The presence of Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration signified the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets in Jesus. The three disciples would have recognized Jesus as the prophet foretold by Moses. Moses was the one through whom Yahweh gave His word as the Law. Jesus, counted worthy of more glory than Moses, came to fulfill the Law and the prophecies. In Jewish thoughts, Moses was the prophet who delivered the people of God out of bondage, while Elijah was often associated with the future deliverance of God’s people. Moses not only spoke the word given to him by God, but also performed miracles to rescue the Israelites from their plights in the wilderness. Elijah was also a miracle worker in his time to call the rebellious Israelites to forsake their idolatry and return to Yahweh God.

In Luke 9:31, Moses and Elijah spoke of Jesus’ “departure”, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. The “departure” in Greek is ἔξοδος (exodos). Evidently, Jesus’ coming death at Jerusalem was spoken of as an “exodus”. Just as Moses led the Israelites “out of Egypt” (exodus) to the Promised Land, Jesus’ death would open the way into the spiritual Land of Promise. Through his life, death, and resurrection, he will lead humanity out of bondage of sin into the new covenant.

While Moses was God’s voice, Elijah was God’s voice calling stubborn Israel to return to worship the one true God Yahweh. As the disciples came down from the mountain, they asked Jesus about Elijah. “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” (Mt 17:10). Jesus answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the son of man will certainly suffer at their hands.” (vv.11, 12). In the minds of the Jews, Elijah was associated with the hope for the coming of the Messiah and the restoration of God’s Kingdom. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah (Lk 1:17). But the people at the time failed to recognize John the Baptist as the Elijah figure. Just as John faced opposition, rejection, and ultimately death at the hands of those who opposed God, Jesus forewarned his disciples that he would face the same treatment. So far, no one had succeeded in restoring all things, and this task was given to God’s anointed Messiah. In the Jewish mind, Elijah’s presence at the Transfiguration indicated that the long-awaited Messiah had come to restore all things. At the glory of transfiguration, God confirmed Jesus as His beloved son, the chosen King to restore Israel. With the Father’s unfading glory in His son, Jesus would be the one to transform the earth into the Kingdom of God. “Listen to him”.

The transfiguration event was a foreshadowing of Jesus’ death. Notice the connection between death and glory. Even in the face of death, Jesus experienced the overwhelming glory of God’s presence in a very tangible way. In Hebrew, the stunning glory of Yahweh is called the kavod YHWH.

In the mind of a Jew, the cloud and the kavod YHWH would remind him of two pivotal episodes of how God acted in the past. When the Tabernacle was completed in the wilderness, “the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of YHWH filled the tabernacle… and the glory of YHWH filled the tabernacle.” (Exo 40:34-35) Similarly, on the day when Solomon dedicated the temple after its completion, the kavod YHWH filled the temple. “And when the priests came out of the Holy Place, a cloud filled the house of YHWH, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of YHWH filled the house of YHWH.” (1Ki 8:10-11) The Jewish rabbis would call this phenomenon Shekinah (שְׁכִינָה) in Hebrew, which literally means “dwelling or presence”. Specifically, the Shekinah points to the glorious divine presence of YHWH dwelling among His people. The Shekinah glory that once dwelt in the Tabernacle and Temple now dwells in a person in an unprecedented way – Jesus, the beloved son of God.

In the eschatological promise, the kavod YHWH will be fully revealed and experienced by all creation. “And the glory of YHWH shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of YHWH has spoken.” (Isa 40:5) “For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of YHWH as the waters cover the sea.” (Hab 2:14) The full glory from the Almighty will overflow the earth, just as the waters cover the full expanse of the sea. No part of the earth will be left untouched by the abundant knowledge of kavod YHWH. Creation itself will be saturated with the kavod YHWH.

Jesus, the beloved son, is the radiance of the kavod YHWH. He is the supreme manifestation of the kavod YHWH, the one in whom the fulness of God’s glorious presence and power dwells. By heeding the Father’s invitation to listen to Jesus, we are drawn into the very presence of the kavod YHWH, to transform us to become a light, a living reflection of the kavod YHWH to the world.

In the Bible, Jesus is spoken of as the son begotten by God. What does it mean to be begotten by God? Does the Bible teach that “the son of God” is the eternal Son, the second person of the Godhead?

(1) Jesus as the son begotten by God is rooted in a Messianic Psalm written by David (cf. Acts 4:24-26).

Psalm 2 was a liturgy used during the coronation of Israel’s successive kings to rule on behalf of God. Prophetically, this psalm speaks of the day when a new Davidic king, appointed by God, will be crowned with God’s authority to rule over Israel and all the nations of the earth. The Psalm can be understood in the following four parts:

(i) The Psalm begins with the rebellion of the nations conspiring against God and His anointed (משיחו), the Messiah (vv.1-2).

(ii) In response to their rebellion, God laughs in derision at the futile attempts of the nations to overthrow His rule. For He will install His King on Zion, His holy mountain (v.6). Prophetically, David’s chosen son would be declared “the son” to represent the heavenly Father’s rule on earth. He will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. (Psa 89:26-27)

(iii) The king responds to the rebellion by recounting the decree spoken to him by Yahweh: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”. (v.7) The king is the begotten son of Yahweh. God and his king would work together in one accord in this unique Father-son relationship. As God’s begotten son, he could “ask” from God, and He will make the nations his heritage, and the ends of the earth his possession (v.8). His dominion would extend to the ends of the earth, indicating his ultimate triumph over all oppositions (vv. 8,9). Because he is God’s begotten son, he would be given full authority over all the earth as his inheritance.

(iv) The psalmist warns the kings and nations to be wise and submit to YHWH through His anointed king, His begotten son. Everyone should listen and “kiss the son” (v.12). Blessed are those who take refuge in him, for God’s enduring reign over all nations will be through His anointed son. (See Psalm 8, 45, 72)

Psalm 2 is realized in the person of Jesus, who was the last anointed in the Davidic dynasty. He was enthroned as the royal Messiah and David’s heir. In the Jewish concept of the long-awaited Messiah, kingship and sonship cannot be separated. The Messiah would be the royal son, begotten by his Father. The Hebrew word for “begotten” is “ילדתיך” (yə-liḏ-tî-ḵā), meaning “bear, bring forth, beget (a father a child)” (HALOT). Jesus has not been the son of God from eternity but was begotten by his Father. He was brought forth miraculously into existence by his Father. This son would be born from the Davidic line. He would not be just any Davidic king but the ultimate heir to David’s throne, the Messiah. As God’s begotten son, he would be the Messianic vice-regent, the one to inherit the nations and establish his reign to the ends of the earth. These combinations of words from the Hebrew Bible collectively highlight Jesus’ identity and mission: Messiah, king, begotten son, ruler, dominion, earth, inheritance.

(2) Psalm 2:7 is cited three times in the New Testament:

How should we understand the word “begotten”? The Greek verb for “I have begotten” is γεγέννηκά (gegennēka) in the first-person singular, perfect, indicative and active mood. It has the meaning of “I have become your Father”. Jesus’ origin came from the Father. And by raising Jesus from the dead, the Father expressed once again his unique relationship with his son. The Father-son relationship was already expressed openly at baptism and at the transfiguration. But at the pivotal moment of resurrection, the Father further enhanced this unique Father-son relationship with Jesus. Romans 1:4 mentions that through Jesus’ resurrection, he was declared as the “son of God in power”. As the son of God, Jesus’ relationship with the Father was further heightened and intensified at resurrection.

In Paul’s sermon at Pisidian Antioch, he quoted Psalm 2:7 in the context of God’s choice of “raising” up David as king. (Acts 13:22) God promised Israel that he would raise up a saviour “from this man’s seed” (σπέρμα / sperma), i.e. David’s offspring (v.23). On the one hand, Jesus was physically born from David’s seed. On the other hand, just as God “raised up” (ἤγειρεν) David as king, he “raised up” (ἤγειρεν) Jesus from the dead (vv. 30). The resurrection was the evidence of Jesus’ enthronement in fulfilling the prophecy in Psalm 2:6-7. The promise of the ultimate Davidic king was realized at the resurrection of Jesus.

The writer to the Hebrews emphasizes the superiority of Jesus over the angels. While angels are created and called sons of God, Jesus is the unique son of God, even high above the angels, for he has inherited a name far greater than that of the angels in the creation (v.4). The writer to the Hebrews quoted two passages (Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14) of the Messiah fulfilling both the kingship and sonship roles of the Messiah. Just as Yahweh was a father to king Solomon, God is a Father to his begotten Son Jesus, who is the ultimate king.

Jesus did not exalt himself to the position of a high priest but was appointed by God, who declared him as His begotten son. His exalted status as the ultimate high priest further highlights his unique Father-son relationship with Yahweh.

(3) At his birth, Jesus is given the identity of the title “the son of God”

Mary was greeted by the angel Gabriel who declared that she would bear a son and she shall call his name Jesus (v.31). This child would be called the son of the Most High and he would be granted the throne of his father David to reign over the house of Jacob forever (vv. 32,33). Mary was puzzled and wondered how it could be done as she was a virgin (v.34). Then Gabriel explained to her how the son would be born (γεννώμενον) miraculously by the Spirit, and he will be called “holy — the son of God.” (v.35)

Does the passage say that the son of God was eternally begotten, that is, he always existed from eternity? The Greek verb “γεννώμενον” (gennōmenon) is in the present, participle, middle or passive mood. Therefore, the begetting of the son has to do with a literal beginning – an origin – a time when he really began to exist. The son of God was miraculously generated at a point in time in Mary’s womb, which means Jesus did not personally preexist before entering into Mary’s womb.

The baby physically developed from an embryo to fetus in Mary’s womb. Jesus had a unique birth by God’s spirit with the miraculous overshadowing of the Most High. She was found to “be pregnant” by the Holy Spirit (LEB; Mt 1:18). As God’s begotten, Jesus did not have a biological father, but he was brought into existence miraculously by his Father through His Spirit. Yahweh is his Father, and Jesus is His son. No other humans were ever begotten in this way. When the pregnancy reached full-term, Mary gave birth to Jesus like all created human beings. Luke does not have in mind a preexistent son of God born to Mary. If we search the Scripture, the Son is not described as “eternally begotten” or as “an eternal Son”, a term that came into existence in the 4^th Century, but is not found in the Bible.

1. The word “begotten” (γεννάω) in Greek means “be or become the father of, to beget, engender, produce, create; rarely of the mother” (BDAG, LSJ). To be begotten means there is a beginning at one point in time.
2. The verb “begat” is used 40 times in Matthew’s genealogy. It simply means: You are born and I have become your father, you are my son.
3. The word γεννάω was used of Mary, “having been conceived in her by the Holy Spirit.” (Mt 1:20). The conception was an act from the Father by the Holy Spirit. Two times, γεννάω was used of baby Jesus “having been born” (Mt 2:1), “was to be born” (Mt 2:4). All these passive voices further underline the fact that Jesus had a beginning, physically conceived, miraculously begotten by the Father. Jesus came into existence after he was conceived.
4. “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son.” (Lk 1:31) Jesus’ life began in Mary’s womb, conceived in the form of a baby. How can Jesus be an eternal God? God did not have a beginning nor was God ever a baby. Jesus came into existence as a baby and he never had a pre-life before entering into Mary’s womb.
5. Jesus, the begotten son of God, was born into the world at a point in time. On a specific day, the son was conceived and born like any human during the reign of the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus. The birth of Jesus was a pivotal moment in history and is celebrated traditionally on December 25^th. The Bible does not give us the exact date, only that Jesus is six months younger than his cousin John. (Lk 1:24-31)
6. Jesus was “born of a woman” (Gal 4:4). He came into the world through a woman, born like all humans. At conception by a woman, a person begins to exist. The person Jesus had never existed before this time. It’s unthinkable that Mary conceived God as her son, as this would make Mary the mother of God. To call Mary the mother of God makes her greater than God, which is not the case. But many people today are misled to pray to Mary, imagining that she is in heaven as the mother of God. Mary is not the mother of God, but “the mother of my Lord”, spoken by Elizabeth, who recognized Jesus as the Messianic Lord. (Lk 1:41-45)
7. On his mother’s side, Jesus’ heritage is traced all the way to Adam. (Lk 3:23-38) Jesus belongs to the human race.
8. The birth of Jesus marked a new page of human history in which God’s purpose of salvation was to be accomplished through “the son of God”. In the fullness of time, “God sent forth his son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons”. (Gal 4:4-5)

From the above, we can see that the begotten son of God has nothing to do with an eternally generated son. The Jews in the 1^st Century did not have the concept that the Messiah existed before he was born. To think of Jesus being the eternal son of God and having a life with the Father before birth would have been outrageous. No Jews would ever have such blasphemous thoughts. Only in the 2nd Century did the early church fathers begin to teach that Jesus preexisted and was alive before he was born in Bethlehem. The concept of gods being generated from the beginning of time comes from Greek mythologies. Under this kind of philosophy in the pagan Hellenistic culture, the Greek fathers later came up with Jesus as having an eternal sonship. They reasoned that since the Father was God, the son was also God. The Greek philosophy was that what was born of God was God. They then developed the doctrine of the incarnation, which was about a preexistent Jesus as God coming down from heaven to save men. Unfortunately, with Greek mythological thinking, the church fathers had totally misinterpreted the biblical meaning of “the son of God”. The Greek fathers did not know Hebrew and could not read the Hebrew Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus ever called “the eternal son of God.” The tragedy is that a tradition started forming regarding “the preexistent son” and “the eternal son”, which later became creeds in the ecumenical councils in the 4^th Century.

I try not to capitalize the “s” in “son” of God, because for many Christians, when they read the capitalized “s” in “Son”, they automatically think of “God the Son”. Most English Bibles have the capitalized “S”. In the Greek text, there is no capitalization.

In the New Testament, Jesus is specifically described as “the only Son” in five instances, and these references are found only in the Johannine books.

1. The Greek word for “only” is μονογενή (monogenés), which carries the meaning “only, unique” (BDAG). Some Bible versions translate the word to “the one and only” (HCSB, LEB, NIV) or simply “the only” (ESV) or “the unique” (ISV). The emphasis should be on the uniqueness. KJV added the extra word “begotten” into the texts, which is incorrect as the Greek word γεγέννηκά (gegennēka) is not used in these texts. The Greek word monogenés is not used exclusively of Jesus but also of other people: “the only son of the widow” whom Jesus raised from the coffin (Lk 7:12); “the only daughter” of Jairus (Lk 8:42); “the only child of a man” who was seized by a demonic spirit (Lk 9:38). Monogenés here refers to the single child in the family.
2. Monogenés is also used of Isaac as “the only son” of Abraham (Heb 11:17). But then Isaac was not the only son of Abraham as he had an older brother Ishmael, and Abraham had other sons by his concubines (Gen 25:6). Why single “Isaac” out as “only” then? He was the unique promised son to Abraham and Sarah.
3. Therefore, translating monogenés as the “only” son is inadequate. “Only” may give the wrong impression that God has only one son. Jesus as the firstborn tells us that there are more sons of God in the new creation. He is the first, but not the only son.
4. Some scholars suggest that when the “only son” refers to Jesus, it actually highlights a unique relationship between the Father and the son. Jesus is God’s unique son in the sense that he is the chosen Messiah, the only one appointed by God.
5. In John 1:18, there are four textual variants in the original Greek manuscripts. The vast majority of Greek manuscripts have “the only son” (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός); a few older Alexandrian manuscripts have “the only God” (ὁ μονογενης θεος) or “only God” (μονογενὴς θεος) without the article ὁ; or “the only” (ὁ μονογενὴς) without any words attached to it. Textual critics use internal and external evidence to decide which text most likely represents the original. According to some modern scholars, the external evidence might favor “the only God” (ὁ μονογενης θεος) as found in ESV. When the internal evidence is looked at within the context, then “the one and only son” (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός) is preferred, as found in HCSB.

Bentley Chan in his book, “Theological Metamorphosis” says it ever more clearly: “ESV’s rendering is problematic in both logic and theology. What sense do we make of “the only God”? If Jesus is the only God, then Jesus must be invisible in some concrete sense, for the verse says that “no one has ever seen God”. Worse yet, if Jesus is the only God, that would exclude the Father as God, a conclusion that would be blasphemous even to trinitarians; it would also contradict John 17:3 which says that the Father is the only true God.”[5] Pastor Bentley gives a comprehensive explanation of the external and internal evidences of “the only begotten son” in John 1:18. [6]

To the Jewish mind, when Jesus is called the son of God, he is not only the Messiah, but also the King of Israel. Sonship and kingship go together.

The angel Gabriel announced to Mary that his son would be called the “son of the Most High”, another title of sonship given to Jesus. First, he would be conceived in the womb of Mary with a miraculous birth from the Most High. There is no implication that the son of the Most High was begotten as an eternal son or that he existed in the past. Second, he is the son of the Most High because he is the promised son of David to reign over the house of Jacob forever. Ultimately, the son of the Most High is the Messiah King to sit on David’s throne and his kingdom will be established forever.

Nathanael made a connection between Jesus being “the son of God” and his identity as “the King of Israel”. “The son of God” and “the King of Israel” are synonymous titles for the Messiah. Nathanael understood from Psalm 2 that “the son of God” refers to the anointed king. As a true Israelite, Nathanael anticipated the Messiah from the Davidic line to be the king to establish a righteous and everlasting kingdom in Israel. He would be both a spiritual and political leader, someone who would deliver Israel from oppression and bring about God’s righteous reign on earth.

When Jesus was interrogated by Pontius Pilate whether he was a King, Jesus affirmed Pilate’s statement and did not deny being a king. This would indicate that Jesus had a kingdom under his reign. He affirmed that he was born and came into the world for the purpose of being a king. He clearly knew his mission as the Messianic king, the accredited heir of God’s promised kingdom. Jesus clarified to Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world but was rooted in divine authority to establish the Kingdom. In the end, Pilate wrote an inscription on the cross. “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” The term “King of the Jews” occurs 18 times, and they all refer to Jesus.

The context of this scene took place during the crucifixion of Jesus. The religious leaders were mocking Jesus that he could save others but not himself from the cross. They taunted Jesus, suggesting that if he were indeed the Messiah and the King, he could demonstrate his power by saving himself from the cross. By referring to the Messiah as the King of Israel, they acknowledged the Jewish expectations of a triumphant Messiah who would liberate Israel and establish a physical kingdom. They were expecting a triumphant Messiah who would overthrow Roman rule. The challenge for Jesus to come down from the cross as a condition for belief reflected their misunderstanding of Jesus’ mission as the Messiah and King of Israel.

The Messianic title “the son of God” has its roots in the royal Psalm 2. To say Jesus is the son of God is unquestionably claiming him to be the Messiah, the king of Israel. Jesus’ unique sonship as God’s son began when he was born miraculously by the Father, and further confirmed at his baptism and transfiguration as “God’s beloved son”. Jesus did not have a heavenly status before birth nor is there any apparent preexistence. At resurrection, he was declared as son of God with power and became the firstborn from the dead. Jesus entered into the heavenly realm of glory for the first time in his ascension. As God’s begotten son, he is the head of the new creation. As God’s begotten son, he is acting as our high priest at God’s right hand. Soon, the begotten son will return as the coronated King-Messiah to usher in God’s kingdom to rule over Israel and all nations.

Jesus never once claimed to be “God the Son” or “God”. He is always “the son of God”, a synonymous title for the Messiah. The term “God the Son” completely distorts the Messianic title “the son of God”. “God the Son” affirms that Jesus is God, while “the son of God” designates Jesus as the representative King-Messiah for God. Can you see the difference?

The Bible does not speak of Jesus as “the eternal son of God” or “the incarnate son of God.” The doctrine of incarnation is a complex theological concept that is beyond the scope of this book. The words “eternal” or “incarnate” in the Bible are not used specifically in relation to Jesus’ sonship to his Father. Never once is Jesus referred to as “the eternal son”, nor is he “God the Son incarnate” in the Bible. Rather, Jesus is referred to as God’s begotten son and God’s beloved son in the Bible. Jesus did not exist as the son from past eternity. As God’s unique son, he descended from the line of David and became the heir of God’s Kingdom. Yahweh gave His everlasting Kingdom to His chosen heir, the begotten son of God, his most beloved son, Jesus. Through Jesus, we can be born into God’s family to become sons of God, heirs, and co-heirs with Jesus, our elder brother.

 

Christians in the first three centuries agreed that Jesus was “the Son of God”, but they differed in how they viewed the sonship of Jesus. In my ignorance, I thought of Jesus as “God the Son” for more than three decades, because I failed to dig into the Bible to see if such a term was Biblical. We must not assume that “the son of God” is equivalent to “God the Son”. The true identity of Jesus is “the son of God” which has its equivalence to “Christ or the Messiah”. Changing the identity of Jesus to “God the Son” undermines the salvific mission of the Messiah. Sadly, instead of referring to Jesus as the Messiah, the Church has been referring to Jesus as God for 1700 years.

Here is an unfortunate situation that happened in Church history. While the Nicene Creed of 325 CE claims that Jesus as “the son of God” is the “true God of true God”, the term “God the Son” emerged later when the Latin fathers coined the term: Deus Filius. Augustine of Hippo used the term “God the Son”: deo patri deus filius obediens (the obedience of God the Son to God the Father)[7]. In Augustine’s sermon 70 of the New Testament, he stated “God the Father is not the Father of the Holy Spirit but of the Son; and God the Son is not the Son of the Holy Spirit, but of the Father.” [8] In Sermon 90, he stated “The Son is God, of God the Father; God the Father, not God of the Son. But God the Son equal with the Father.” [9] Later, the Athanasian Creed in late 5^th Century claims: “Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus: et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus (God the Father, God the Son, God the holy Spirit: not three Gods, but one God.)[10] The Latin theologians subtly changed the order of the words “the son of God” into a title of deity “God the Son”.

The Latin perversion of Deus Filius became the standard confession of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The German Augsburg Confession in 1530 adopted the phrase “Gott der Sohn” (God the Son).[11]

The term “God the Son” would be utterly foreign to the New Testament writers. The title “God the Son” is purely a man-made term. “The son of God” in the Greek text is “ὁ υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ” in the genitive form. “God the Son” in Greek is “Θεός ὁ υἱός” in the nominative form. If only the Gentile theologians had adhered to the Greek text in the New Testament, they would not have committed such serious errors that have impacted all of Christendom. Nowhere does Scripture require one to believe in the deity of Christ for salvation. Such a notion is imposed by the doctrine of Trinity, and not by Scripture.

The “God the Son” concept greatly influenced even the translators. The NIV translation of John 1:18 with its manuscript variant blatantly claims that the Son himself is God. For young Christians who are not versed in the Greek text, they can only depend on translations. May God have mercy on us, because the grave error of inventing the term Deus Filius has had detrimental consequences to our confession of faith in our churches. Can you now discern how the Trinity doctrine had subtly departed completely from the truth of God’s word?

Do you put your faith in “the son of God?

Or do you still insist on putting your faith in “God the Son”?