CHAPTER ONE

Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

Presentation at “The Trinity and the Bible” Symposium
Adventist University of Africa, Advent Hill, Kenya: 4 May 2018
Ron du Preez, PhD (Theology), ThD (Ethics), DMin (Missions)

The Kindergarten Sabbath School teacher may have done thor-

ough preparation to teach the lesson that Sabbath; but, she was probably
at a loss for words, when, right after she had talked about Jesus, one of
the children interjected: “Jesus is not God; He is only ‘the son of God’!”
This hyper-literalistic perspective should not surprise any Seventh-day
Adventist who is cognizant of the view of some early pioneers of this de-
nomination. Even that foremost Bible scholar, John Nevins Andrews, who
served as editor of the official church paper, the Review and Herald,
wrote against the trinity notion. In an article regarding the identity of
Melchizedek in Hebrews 7, he argued that the words “having neither be-
ginning of days” (vs. 3) cannot be taken as literal, since every being in the
universe except for God the Father has a beginning. Ironically, it is in this
very context that Andrews himself, taking the phrase “Son of God” as ex-
tremely literal, wrote: “And as to the Son of God, he would be excluded
also, for he had God for his Father, and did, at some point in the eternity
of the past, have [a] beginning of days.”1
It is the overly-literal perspective of that kindergartener and even
some early Adventist pioneers, as well as the more recent challenges
raised by other non- and anti-trinitarians,2 that have inadvertently pro-
vided an impetus for this research.

1
J. N. Andrews, “Melchisedec,” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald,
7 September 1869, 84.
2
Such as that of former Seventh-day Adventist Pastor Adrian Ebens,
whose “Christology, based on a literal understanding of the sonship of Christ
seems to be nothing more than an improved Arian position” (Paul Bhaggien,
“The Inherited Deity of Christ: A Critical Analysis of the Christology Suggested by
Adrian Ebens,” PhD thesis, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies,
2014, Abstract).
8 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

Introduction
In his book Understanding the Trinity, former Jehovah’s Witness,
Max Hatton, confronts the complex challenge of attempting to describe
God in human language. He reminds us that,
Human languages have developed so that humans can describe
things they observe and talk about their experiences. Therefore, hu-
man language is only really adequate to describe things on the hu-
man level. We must acknowledge that we are incapable of seeing,
knowing, or experiencing the completeness of God. We simply don’t
have words to describe Him. When we use the word “person” [for
example] we are prone to think of the type we know. When we think
of the three persons of the Trinity we are likely to think of them as
we would three human persons. . . . Human language is inadequate,
but it is the only vehicle we have to talk about God. To paraphrase
Augustine:
We use the word “persons,” not because we want to use it, but
because otherwise we would be reduced to silence.3

In brief, as Hatton aptly admits: “Human language is quite inade-

quate to describe God.”4 As the prophet Isaiah, who had a vision of the
LORD (Isa 6), rhetorically asked: “To whom can God be compared? How
can you describe what he is like?” (Isa 40:18, TEV). Yet, since humans
were created with the ability to communicate, and since the LORD takes
“delight” in the one who “understands and knows” Him (Jer 9:23),5 the
ultimate aim of this essay is to delve into the contextual meaning of the
specific phrase “Son of God,” as used in Scripture. D. A. Carson raised the
question: “What does it mean to say that the God of the Bible has a
Son?”6
This question is especially pertinent for those translating the Bi-
ble in contexts where the envisioned readers are Muslims. This is so since

3
Max Hatton, Understanding the Trinity (Lincolnshire, England: Autumn
House, 2001), 19-20 (emphasis original).
4
Ibid., 19.
5
Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible references are from the New King
James Version.
6
D. A. Carson, Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Over-
looked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed (Wheaton, IL: Cross-
way, 2012), 13.
 ADVENTIST APOLOGETICS 9

the Qur’an repeatedly denies that Isa (i.e., Jesus) can be considered as
the son of God. As Carson noted: “At the street level, many Muslims think
Christians believe that God somehow impregnated Mary, and that the
Trinity is made up of God, Mary, and Jesus, who is thus the Son of God.
They find the construct bizarre, not to say blasphemous, and of course
they are right.”7 Carson correctly cautioned concerning the danger that
the translator confronts, of feeling the pressure to mute or minimize cer-
tain theological concepts because of the argument that the “culture” (of
Muslims, in this case) will not readily accept specific scriptural truths. He
encouraged prudent translation that would not unwittingly remove
“from the message itself things that are clearly taught in the Bible and
are therefore nonnegotiable.”8 So, back to the question, what does the
biblical expression “Son of God” actually mean?

The Scriptural Notion of “Son” and “Sonship”

Gerhard Pfandl sounded a timely caution in his article on the trin-
ity in Scripture: “The word ‘son’ has a broad range of meanings in the
original language[s]. Therefore, it is not possible to reduce it to the nar-
row limits of the English language and pinpoint it to a literal understand-
ing.”9 Various approaches may be taken regarding this matter of “son”
and “sonship.”
Based on his general survey of sonship in Scripture, Hatton has
concluded that the broad concept of “son of God” appears in four differ-
ent ways: (a) The Nativistic Sense, as in Luke 1:35, where the angel an-
nounced to Mary that “‘the one to be born will be called the Son of God;’”
(b) The Moral-Religious Sense, where it refers to a special loving relation-
ship between father and children (John 1:12); (c) The Messianic Sense, as

7
Ibid., 89.
8
Ibid., 104. Since Carson appears to advocate a more verbal/mechanical
understanding of inspiration (ibid., 55), his concern may need moderation by
Seventh-day Adventists, who believe in “thought inspiration.”
9
See Gerhard Pfandl, “The Trinity in Scripture,” 9, https://www.adve
ntistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/trinscript.pdf (accessed 3 May
2018).
10 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

the Davidic king whom God designates as “My Son” (Ps 2:7); and (d) The
Theological Sense, in which Jesus is the Son of God (Heb 4:14).10
While not discounting the thoughtful work of Hatton, the pur-
pose of this essay is a bit more basic. It will actually investigate the spe-
cific terminology, as used by the various writers of the Bible. Because Ad-
ventists believe in “thought inspiration,” in which “all Scripture is given
by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16), and that this process was supernatu-
rally guided by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21), it seems reasonable to con-
clude that the written Word of God has been provided to humanity with
sufficient critical clarity of concepts, so that by means of “careful research
and prayerful reflection”11 one may be “rightly dividing the word of truth”
(2 Tim 2:15). Hence, while taking into account multiple factors, the focus
of this essay will be a direct investigation of specific terminology used in
both the Old and the New Testaments.

The Literal Use of the Word “Son”

To begin with, it may be helpful to consider various ways in which
the noun “son” is used in Scripture, in order to illustrate the variety of
meanings intended for this basic substantive:
1. To identify direct male descendants. Of the thousands of occurrences
of the basic lexical word “son” in the Bible, it appears that most of the
time, whether the noun is in the singular or in the plural, it is used in a
literal sense to refer to direct biological male descendants. For example,
David is called “a son of Jesse” (1 Sam 16:18). Genesis 7:13 refers to
“Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah.” In the New Testament,
one finds mention of “blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus” (Mark
10:46). Also, a couple of Jesus’ disciples, James and John, are classified as
the “two sons of Zebedee” (Matt 26:37).
2. To refer to adopted males. The substantive “son” also apparently ap-
plies to one who has been adopted. For instance, Hebrews 11:24 speaks
of Moses, who “refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.”
Shortly before he died, Jacob spoke as follows to his son Joseph: “‘And

10
Hatton, 33-34 (emphasis original).
11
Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1981), 90.3.
 ADVENTIST APOLOGETICS 11

now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, . . . as Reuben and Simeon,
they shall be mine’” (Gen 48:5), thus formally adopting his grandsons, as
his own sons.
3. Indicate a typical son. At times, the term “son” is used to refer to a
category, or a typical son. For instance: “As a man disciplines his son, so
the LORD your God disciplines you” (Deut 8:5, NIV); or, as in the parable
of Jesus, “‘A certain man had two sons’” (Luke 15:11).
4. To be inclusive of males and females. Many who have grown up using
the King James Version are acquainted with the phrase “the children of
Israel.” However, perhaps few realize that the Hebrew language actually
states “the sons of Israel.” The seventeenth-century translators of the
KJV, well-aware that the term “sons” was intended in such instances to
be inclusive of “daughters” as well, have thus appropriately rendered the
original “sons” as “children,” since it encompasses male and female Isra-
elite descendants (see, e.g., Exod 12:28; Num 8:19; Deut 14:1; etc.).

The Figurative Usage of the Term “Son”

In addition to, and somewhat in contrast with, the manner in
which the substantive “son” or “sons” is used in Scripture, are its figura-
tive applications.
1. To describe a generative affiliation. Perhaps more unusual, though, are
expressions in the Hebrew language, such as “son of a flame” (Job 5:7),
“son of a bow” (Job 41:28), “sons of the beating” (Deut 25:2), or “sons of
might” (2 Sam 17:10). These are passages, which even the normally “lit-
eral” King James Version does not render in that manner. The KJV, in a
generative manner, renders “son of a flame” as “sparks;” “son of a bow”
as “arrow;” “sons of the beating” as “worthy to be beaten;” and “sons of
might” as “mighty men.”
2. To portray a mentoring relationship. Operating as a spiritual mentor to
various young men, the apostle Paul referred, for instance, to Timothy as
“a true son in the faith” (1 Tim 1:2),12 or as “a beloved son” (2 Tim 1:2).
Though not training him as a church leader, Paul still established a close

Similarly, Paul called Titus “my true son in a common faith” (Titus 1:4).
12
12 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

father-son relationship with Onesimus, whom he referred to as “my son,”

in a personal letter to Philemon (vs. 10).
3. To communicate a salvific reality. In a manner somewhat reminiscent
of the way that “son” is used of literal adoption, Paul noted that salvation
in Jesus Christ is equivalent to “the adoption of sons” (Gal 4:5). In fact,
God has “predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself”
(Eph 1:5; cf. Rom 8:15).
4. To depict a special election by deity. This spiritual salvific reality seems
to have been expressed centuries earlier, in a more literal redemptive
manner, when the LORD instructed Moses: “Then you shall say to Phar-
aoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you,
let My son go that he may serve Me’” (Exod 4:22, 23a). This special elec-
tion by the Deity was later re-echoed in Hosea 11:1b: “And out of Egypt I
called My son.”

The Idiomatic Utilization of the Noun “Son”

There are several places where formal versions render the He-
brew language in very literal ways, sometimes inadvertently precipitating
confusion.
1. To imply an ingrained personality. At times the use of “son” can suggest
an ingrained personality trait, such as in 1 Samuel 20:30: “Then Saul’s an-
ger was aroused against Jonathan, and he said to him, ‘You son of a per-
verse, rebellious woman.’” If read superficially, it may appear that Saul
was calling Jonathan’s mother a “perverse, rebellious woman.” However,
the context makes it clear that he was really not saying anything about
Jonathan’s biological mother, since the rest of the verse indicates that
Saul believed that Jonathan’s actions would bring “shame” on her.13 In
order for the modern reader to capture the essence of what the actual
idiomatic meaning of this Hebrew phrase “son of x” means, some trans-
lations have rendered Saul’s outburst as follows: “You stupid traitor”
(NET); “You crooked rebel” (CJB). Other versions, seeking to retain the
word “son,” in Saul’s diatribe, have put it thus: “You are an evil son”

13
The rest of the verse reads: “Do I not know that you have chosen the
son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?”
 ADVENTIST APOLOGETICS 13

(NIrV); “You’re no son of mine, you traitor!” (CEV). Similarly, whereas in

2 Kings 6:32 Elisha uses the phrase “son of a murderer,” it is clear that he
is referring to the murderous king of Israel, not the king’s father. This type
of phrase could also indicate positive traits. Rendered literally, Ecclesias-
tes 10:17 proclaims, “Blessed are you, O land, when your king is the son
of nobles.” Other versions, such as the New Revised Standard Version,
have rightly translated it: “Happy are you, O land, when your king is a
nobleman,” showing that the focus is on the king himself, not on his an-
cestors.
2. To express vocational inheritance.14 A similar challenge of the literal
rendering of “son of x” (especially in the KJV) can be seen for instance, as
follows: Nehemiah 12:28 refers to “the sons of the singers,”15 giving the
unwary reader the impression that these were simply the male descend-
ants of the singers, not the singers themselves. However, many modern
English versions have chosen to render the phrase, “the sons of the sing-
ers,” as follows, thus focusing on the distinguishing vocation of the group:
“the trained singers” (CJB); “the Levite singers” (CEV); “the companies of
the singers” (NRSV); “the members of choirs” (MEV); simply as “the sing-
ers” (HCSB); or more broadly as “the musicians” (NIV). These translations
rightly indicate that the phrase “sons of x” is being used to identify musi-
cians themselves, not their progeny. Likewise, when Hananiah is called
“the son of one of the apothecaries” (in the KJV), the NKJV renders it ap-
propriately as “Hananiah, one of the perfumers.” Such examples of the
idiomatic use of “son of x” can be multiplied.16

14
Carson (19-20) explained at length: “Vocationally speaking, in our cul-
ture relatively few sons end up doing what their father did; relatively few daugh-
ters end up doing what their mothers did . . . . In the ancient world, however, the
percentage would have been much higher, frequently well over 90 percent. If
your father was a farmer, you became a farmer; if your father was a baker, you
became a baker; if your father was a carpenter, you became a carpenter—which
of course is why Jesus could be known both as the carpenter’s son (Matt. 13:55),
and, in one remarkable passage, as the carpenter (Mark 6:3—presumably after
Joseph had died). . . . To put the matter differently, your father determined your
identity, your training, your vocation.”
15
The ASV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, etc., also literally render it as “sons of the
singers.”
16
See, for example, 1 Chron 11:22; Prov 31:5; Isa 19:11; 56:3; etc. For
additional examples and explanations, see, Carson, 19-27.
14 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

3. To specify a generic connection. It appears that a few proper names,

over time, became so intimately integrated with “theological signifi-
cance”17 that their names were employed as de facto common nouns,
just as Americans may use the word “Kleenex” when meaning tissue, or
when “Coke” is used to refer to any type of soft drink, or when the brand
name “Scotch tape” is employed as a generic term. For example, while
originally the concept “son/s of Abraham” referred to his literal biological
descendants,18 in time it began to be used in relation to spiritual salva-
tion, as when Jesus referred to the transformed Zacchaeus as “‘a son of
Abraham’” (Luke 19:9).19 As Carson adroitly observed: “The true sons of
Abraham, Paul insists, are not those who carry Abraham’s genes, but
those who act like him, who imitate the faith of Abraham (Gal. 3:7; cf.
John 8:33, 39-40), the ‘man of faith’ (Gal. 3:9).”20
4. To disclose a typological analogy. The phrase “son of David,” over time,
moved from being used in a literal sense (to refer to the biological off-
spring of David),21 to a typological use. Apparently, the origin of this con-
cept of the “son of David,” is located in 2 Samuel 7:14, where God sent a
message to David, through the prophet Nathan: “I will be his Father, and
he shall be My son.” Later prophets fleshed out the specifics of this Da-
vidic anticipation, until when Jesus came, He was recognized as the “Son
of David” (Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; etc.),22 a concept best en-
capsulated in Nathanael’s declaration: “Rabbi, You are the Son of God!
You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:49).

17
The translation “son of Belial” (as in 1 Sam 25:17, KJV) is not included
in this, since this term had been mistakenly understood by the KJV translators as
a proper noun. As seen in modern versions (and as based on the standard He-
brew lexicon of Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 116) the original term bělîya‘al means
“worthlessness;” hence the NKJV’s rendition, “scoundrel.”
18
See especially the various passages in Gen 17-28.
19
The phrase “son/s of Israel” (besides genealogical reports) seemingly
developed similar connotations.
20
Carson, 26. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the claim
of the Jews, “Abraham is our father” (John 8:38), would therefore be considered
false.
21
As in 2 Sam 13:1; 1 Chron 29:22; 2 Chron 1:1; 30:26; 35:3; etc.; cf. 1
Kgs 5:5, 7; 2 Kgs 21:7; 1 Chron 22:5, 7, 17; 23:1; 28:11; etc.
22
See Carson, 31, 32, 36-38, 44-62.
 ADVENTIST APOLOGETICS 15

Summary of the General Use of “Son” in Scripture

In each of the above uses of the phrase “son/s of x” (other than
in the obvious literal sense), it appears evident that, whenever “son/s of”
immediately precedes a normal common noun or even a proper noun
that has been genericized into a common noun, as shown above regard-
ing the “sons” of Abraham and David, it is to be understood in a figurative
or idiomatic sense. In other words, in such cases, it does not refer to bio-
logical descendants or even adopted ones, but symbolically serves to
identify someone who has the nature of, or innate characteristics of, the
main concept being emphasized, which is why many modern English ver-
sions have, in most cases, rendered the phrase “son/s of x” in a non-literal
manner, as noted above.
The 2011 Common English Bible, which had 120 “biblical scholars
from twenty-two faith traditions” involved in its translation,23 noted how
the above phenomenon, of “son of x” has been employed in the New
Testament:
Greek usage often refers to “a son of x” in the sense of “one who has
the character of x.” For example, Luke 10:6 refers in Greek to “a son
of peace,” a phrase that has the sense of “one who shares in peace.”
In Acts 13:10 Paul calls a sorcerer “a son of the devil.” This is not a
reference to the sorcerer’s actual ancestry, but it serves to identify
his character. He is devilish—or more simply in English, “a devil.”24

As part of their aim at “rigorous accuracy in the translation of an-

cient texts,” together with “an equally passionate commitment to clarity
of expression,”25 the CEB has thus avoided a literal rendering of the
phrase “son of x,” so that the biblical text can be properly understood.
The analysis done thus far indicates that the word “son,” as well
as the expression “son of x” in Scripture, is contextually employed in a
wide variety of literal, figurative, and idiomatic ways. An awareness of

23
Common English Bible: A Fresh Translation to Touch the Heart and
Mind (Ashville: Common English Bible, 2011), xiii. In all, taking into account 77
reading groups (ibid.), “more than five hundred individuals were integrally in-
volved in the preparation of the CEB.”
24
Ibid., xiii-xiv.
25
Ibid., xiii.
16 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

this diversity should be sufficient to caution the reader to avoid drawing

any superficial conclusions in connection with this multivalent term; but
rather, to diligently explore the immediate and broader contexts, in order
to best understand and interpret the meaning of the word “son,” as well
as the expression “son of x.”

Brief Reflections on the Phrase “Son of Man”

Frequently, other than when used in a defined literal manner,26
the phrase “son of man” appears in both Old and New Testaments. In
typical Hebrew poetic manner, the following is recorded in Numbers
23:19:
“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

As seen, the echoing concepts show that “man,” in line one, is

paired with “son of man,” in line two, etc. Taking this into account, the
New English Translation rendered the first part:
“God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a human being, that he should change his mind.”27

Likewise, the “son of man” echo in Job 35:8, is rendered as “fel-

low human being” in the New American Bible. Similarly, the New King
James Version’s “son of man” echo in Psalm 8:428 is translated as “man-
kind” in the New English Translation; and the “sons of man” echo in Prov-
erbs 8:4 is rendered as “humanity” in the Common English Bible.
When it comes to how to render the phrase “son of man” (trans-
literated as ben ‘adam, in Hebrew; or υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, in Greek), the
CEB uses “human being,”29 or “human one”30 in cases of direct address.

26
Gen 42:13 refers to “the sons of one man” (i.e., the literal sons of Ja-
cob); so also, 1 Sam 30:6.
27
Emphases added. For similar renderings see, CEB, ICB, LEB, NAB, etc.
28
Also, Pss 144:3; 146:3.
29
See Num 23:19; Job 35:8; Dan 7:13; etc.
30
This phrase is often used of the prophet Ezekiel: Ezek 2:1, 3, 6, 8; 3:1,
3, 4, 10; etc. See also, Dan 8:17.
 ADVENTIST APOLOGETICS 17

In connection with Jesus, the CEB identifies Him as “the Human One,”31
thus aptly indicating that this phrase really has to do with identifying the
humanity of Jesus, and is not dealing with His ancestry.
Incidentally, while not a major theological factor, the following
“logical” inconsistency may be worth noting parenthetically, in the con-
text of that kindergartener’s claim that “Jesus is not God; He is only the
‘son of God.’” When it comes to the frequent nomenclature, “Son of
Man” (which Jesus often used of Himself),32 one never hears the argu-
ment: “Well, Jesus is not man; He is only the ‘son of man.’” In other
words, if the first argument “proves” that Jesus is not God (or that He
does not have a divine nature), then the second phrase similarly “proves”
that Jesus is not man (i.e., that He does not have a human nature).
The undeniable fact that the phrase “son of man” in the Bible is
utilized to indicate the nature and characteristic identity of the one being
referenced, may prove useful in the analysis of the singular expression
“Son of God,” to be addressed later in this essay.

The Plural Terminology “Sons of God” in Scripture33

The particular phrase “sons of God” appears only twelve times
throughout the Bible, seven of which are located in the Old Testament.

“Sons of God” in the Old Testament

This plural phrase, běnê-hā‘elōhîm,34 is translated as “the sons of
God.” First, Genesis 6:2 and 4 refer to the “sons of God,” who took wives
of the “daughters of men.” Despite the scholarly dispute as to who these
“sons of God” were, most Bibles simply render the terms literally as “sons

31
Common English Bible, xiii.
32
See, for example, Matt 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41;
16:13, 28; 17:12, 22; 18:11; etc.
33
While others may do broader research on related words and/or con-
cepts, the purpose in these two sub-sections is more basic: to discover how the
phrases “sons of God” and “Son of God” are employed in Scripture.
34
In Gen 6:2 the first word is běnê-; and in Job 38:7 the last word is
‘elōhîm, none of which impacts the factors noted above. In Ps 29:1 it is běnê-
êlîm, while in Ps 89:6 it is běnê-êlîm, also, a matter of no real consequence for
the discussion above.
18 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

of God.” Others, however, interpret it loosely as “divine/heavenly/super-

natural beings.” Contextually, it seems that the Expanded Bible’s first op-
tion is best, that this phrase in verse 2 “may refer to godly men among
Seth’s descendants (ch. 5),” which comports well with Ellen White’s ex-
planation: “The children of Seth [i.e., the worshipers of God], attracted
by the beauty of the daughters of Cain’s descendants [i.e., the depraved],
displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them.”35 Three occurrences of
“sons of God” are located in the book of Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7). While most
English versions simply retain the literal phrase “sons of God,” it seems
that, of available translations, the New Living Translation may be closest,
when it refers to them as “the heavenly court,” (Job 1:6; 2:1), especially
if this is understood to include beings from unfallen worlds.36 The third
appearance of “sons of God” in Job is located in chapter 38:7, which the
Voice translation renders as “God’s heavenly throng,” and the New Inter-
national Version calls “the angels.”37 While the passages in Psalms 29:1
and 89:6 use a slightly different spelling, they are also rightly rendered
literally as “sons of God.” Most English versions interpret both of these
texts as “angels” (NCV), or as “heavenly beings” (NIV).38

35
Ellen G. White noted: “Many of the worshipers of God were beguiled
into sin by the allurements that were now constantly before them, and they lost
their peculiar, holy character. Mingling with the depraved, they became like
them in spirit and in deeds” (Patriarchs and Prophets [Washington, DC: Review
and Herald, 1890], 81.2).
36
A few versions suggest that the “sons of God” are “angels,” or “di-
vine/heavenly beings.” Ellen White states: “When ‘the heavens and the earth
were finished, and all the host of them’ (Genesis 2:1), the Creator and all heav-
enly beings rejoiced in contemplation of the glorious scene. ‘The morning stars
sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.’ Job 38:7” (Ellen G. White,
The Desire of Ages [Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005], 769.2).
37
From her statement in The Great Controversy, it appears that Ellen
White understood these “sons of God” to actually be angels: “Before the crea-
tion of man, angels were in existence; for when the foundations of the earth
were laid, ‘the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for
joy.’ Job 38:7. After the fall of man, angels were sent to guard the tree of life,
and this before a human being had died. Angels are in nature superior to men,
for the psalmist says that man was made ‘a little lower than the angels.’ Psalm
8:5” (The Great Controversy [Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1950], 511.2).
38
There is one anomalous phrase, which is used by Moses to refer to the
people of Israel, who had been set apart as “a holy people to the L ORD your God”
(Deut 14:2). Verse 1 includes the phrase bānîm ‘atem layhwāh ‘elōhêkem, which
 ADVENTIST APOLOGETICS 19

“Sons of God” in the New Testament

The plural terminology “sons of God” appears only five times in
the entire New Testament. First, Matthew 5:9 has the expression υἱοί
Θεοῦ, which can be seen in the translation: “Blessed are the peacemak-
ers, for they will be called children of God” (NIV), an apt way to describe
those who live and promote godly peace. Second, as seen in Luke 20:36,
one finds the Greek phrase υἱοί εἰσιν Θεοῦ. The NIV renders this verse,
“and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s
children, since they are children of the resurrection,” thus expressing the
fact that those who are ultimately saved, will enter a state of immortality
such as the angels have. Third, Romans 8:14 refers to those who are will-
ing to follow the Spirit of God, as οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Θεοῦ, i.e., “these are
the sons of God.” Fourth, in the same context Romans 8:19 notes that all
creation is eagerly waiting for the revealing of “the sons of God” (τῶν
υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ), that is, for God to show who His children are. Fifth, Ga-
latians 3:26 has the phrase υἱοί Θεοῦ. Again, the NIV has well rendered
this verse: “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,”
thus indicating the relationship Christians have with God. In short, “sons
of God” (when used in the plural in the New Testament) refers to genuine
believers in God. In Ellen White’s words: “Through the infinite sacrifice of
Christ, and faith in His name, the sons of Adam become the sons of
God.”39 In brief, this analysis reveals a remarkable consistency of usage:
The plural phrase “sons of God” occurs twelve times throughout the en-
tire Bible (seven times in the Old, and five times in the New). While the
phrase serves to identify godly humans, angels, or apparently unfallen
beings of other words, never once does the plural form include the Mes-
siah, Jesus.

is literally translated as “You [are] the sons of Yahweh your God.” Here the plural
term “sons of X” (though uniquely used with the proper name of God) is again
understood as referring to those who are genuine believers in God. Never is the
singular “son of Yahweh” used, for it may mislead the reader to a literal perspec-
tive.
39
Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, 9 vols. (Mountain View,
CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 4:563.2.
20 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

The Singular Expression “Son of God” in Scripture

Only once is this phrase employed in the singular in the entire Old
Testament, and that in the Aramaic language, as lěbar-‘elāhîn (Dan 3:25).
This unexpected appearance, in the fiery furnace, of the “Son of God”
seems to be nomenclature that refers to the pre-incarnate Jesus. As Ellen
White put it: “The Hebrew captives had told Nebuchadnezzar of Christ,
the Redeemer that was to come, and from the description thus given, the
king recognized the form of the fourth in the fiery furnace as the Son of
God.”40 Some versions, apparently aware that the idiomatic phrase “son
of x” is employed to identify a being with the same nature, simply omitted
the words “son of,” and translated this to indicate that “the fourth [being
in the fire] has the appearance of a god” (NRSV; see also CEV, NLT); or,
“resembles a divine being” (ISV). In short, the “Son of God” refers to Jesus
Christ, a divine being, that is, God.
Since the expression “Son of God” (singular) appears dozens of
times throughout the New Testament, the following diagrammatic out-
line may help to elucidate the ways in which the phrase is used:

Complete Enumeration of the Greek Phrases

For “Son of God” in the New Testament
# Reference Greek Expression Translation; with Contextual
Considerations
1 Matt 4:3 Εἰ Υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ “If You are the Son of God”
(the devil’s challenge)
2 Matt 4:6 Εἰ Υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ “If You are the Son of God”
(the devil’s challenge)
3 Matt 8:29 Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ “Son of God” (two demoniacs
recognizing Jesus)
4 Matt 14:33 Θεοῦ Υἱὸς εἶ “You are the Son of God”
(said by Jesus’ disciples)
5 Matt 26:63 ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (the high
priest’s order to Jesus)

40
Ellen G. White, “Lessons from the Life of Daniel,” The Youth’s Instruc-
tor, 26 April 1904, par. 4.
 ADVENTIST APOLOGETICS 21

6 Matt 27:40 εἰ Υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ “If You are the Son of God”
(by-passers mocking)
7 Matt 27:43 Θεοῦ εἰμι Υἱὸς “‘I am the Son of God’”
(mockers, quoting Jesus)
8 Matt 27:54 Θεοῦ Υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος “This was the Son of God”
(soldiers’ recognition)
9 Mark 1:1 Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ “Son of God” (introduction to
Mark’s gospel)
10 Mark 3:11 Σὺ εἶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “You are the Son of God” (un-
clean spirits’ shout)
11 Mark 15:39 οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος Υἱὸς Θεοῦ “This Man was the Son of
ἦν God!” (the centurion’s recog-
nition, when Jesus died on
the cross)
12 Luke 1:35 κληθήσεται Υἱὸς Θεοῦ “will be called the Son of
God” (said by the angel)
13 Luke 4:3 Εἰ Υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ “If You are the Son of God”
(the devil’s challenge)
14 Luke 4:9 Εἰ Υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ “If You are the Son of God”
(the devil’s challenge)
15 Luke 4:41 Σὺ εἶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “You are the Son of God” (the
shout of demons)
16 Luke 8:28 Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ “Son of God” (the demoniac
acknowledging Jesus)
17 Luke 22:70 Σὺ οὖν εἶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “Are You then the Son of
God?” (a question posed by
the elders, i.e., the chief
priests and scribes)41
18 John 1:34 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “This is the Son of God” (the
testimony of John, the Bap-
tizer, regarding Jesus Christ)
19 John 1:49 σὺ εἶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “You are the Son of God”
(Nathanael’s statement)

41
In answer to this question, Jesus stated: “You say that I am,” (Luke
22:71), to which the elders responded: “What further testimony do we need?”
This indicated that they understood the import of Jesus’ claim.
22 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

20 John 3:18 Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ “Son of God” (Jesus’ private

talk with Nicodemus)
21 John 5:25 τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (Jesus’ ref-
erence to Himself)
22 John 9:35 τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ42 “the Son of God” (Jesus’ ref-
erence to Himself)
23 John 10:36 Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰμι “I am the Son of God” (Jesus’
claim about Himself)
24 John 11:4 ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (Jesus’ ref-
erence to Himself)
25 John 11:27 ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (Martha’s
recognition of Jesus)
26 John 19:7 ὅτι Υἱὸν Θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν “He made Himself the Son of
ἐποίησεν God” (the complaint by the
Jews against Jesus’ claim, of
being divine)43
27 John 20:31 ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (John’s at-
testation about Jesus)
28 Acts 8:37 τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (Ethiopian’s
statement of Jesus)
29 Acts 9:20 ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (Paul’s at-
testation about Jesus)
30 Rom 1:4 Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ “Son of God” (Paul’s salutary
attestation of Jesus)
31 2 Cor 1:19 ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ γὰρ Υἱὸς “for the Son of God” (Paul’s
reference to Jesus)
32 Gal 2:20 τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (Paul’s affir-
mation about Jesus)
33 Eph 4:13 τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (Paul’s at-
testation about Jesus)

42
This is the Textus Receptus (also, the Majority Text); the Nestle-Aland
Text has τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
43
In John 10:33, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for alleged “blasphemy,”
“because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Similarly, when He was accused
of claiming to be “the Son of God,” it was understood by the Jews as a claim to
be God.
 ADVENTIST APOLOGETICS 23

34 Heb 4:14 τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (identifying
Jesus, as High Priest)
35 Heb 6:6 τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (a reference
to Jesus Christ)
36 Heb 7:3 τῷ Υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ44 “the Son of God” (identifying
Jesus, as High Priest)
37 Heb 10:29 τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (referring to
Jesus, as High Priest)
38 1 John 3:8 ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (writing of
Jesus, versus the devil)
39 1 John 4:15 ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (the vital at-
testation about Jesus)
40 1 John 5:5 ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (victorious
affirmation of Jesus)
41 1 John 5:10 τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (importance
of belief in Jesus)
42 1 John 5:12 τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (eternal life,
only in Jesus Christ)
43 1 John 5:13 τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (eternal life,
only in Jesus Christ)
44 1 John 5:13 τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (eternal life,
only in Jesus Christ)
45 1 John 5:20 ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (Is Jesus
called “the true God”?)45
46 Rev 2:18 ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ “the Son of God” (this revela-
tion is of Jesus Christ)

44
The only other place where this dative form appears is in the Septua-
gint, in Dan 3:25, where it appears as υἱῷ Θεοῦ. Both texts use basically the same
word for “like” (ὁμοία in Daniel; and ἀφωμοιωμένος in Hebrews).
45
Various Bible versions render this phrase so as to convey the under-
standing that John is here actually referring to Jesus as “the true God.” For ex-
ample, while many translations imply such (e.g., ASV, HCSB, NASB, NKJV, etc.),
God’s Word clearly states: “This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life.” The
International Standard Version refers to “Jesus the Messiah, who is the true God
and eternal life.”
24 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

With amazing regularity, it appears that every one of the above

46 appearances of the phrase “Son of God” refers to Jesus of Nazareth.46
Throughout the New Testament this expression “Son of God” (in the sin-
gular) is never used to refer to any created being.47
Similar to the undeviating use of the plural terminology “sons of
God” (as examined earlier), the 47 occurrences of the singular expression
“Son of God” (once in the Old, and 46 times in the New Testament), is
always utilized in relation to Jesus Christ, and never to anyone else. While
Carson may be right that the “Son of God” is “not a terminus technicus,
as the Latins say—a technical term that always carries the same associa-
tions,”48 there seems to be sufficient evidence that this exclusive phrase
“Son of God” is consistently employed throughout the Bible to refer
solely to Jesus. Context, however, needs to reveal how each phrase best
relates to Him as the Christ.49
Incidentally, such specificity of terminology in relation to the trin-
ity, is not unique. As Hatton rightly recognized:
Jesus went out of His way to avoid placing Himself on the same level
as others in their relationship to the Father. He was careful not to
embrace others by saying “Our Father” when referring to God. In
Matthew 5:16, 45 He refers to God as “Your Father”—see also Luke
12:30. So careful was Jesus to maintain this stance that at John 20:17

46
This count of 46 includes one found in the TR. The count includes the
use of “Son of God” by doubters as well (e.g., Matt 27:40; cf. vs. 43).
47
Admittedly, on the surface it may appear that in Luke 3:38, Adam is
called “the son of God.” However, as noted in Bible versions (such as the ASV,
and NKJV), the words “the son” are placed in italics, since they are not in any
original manuscripts, and have been added by the translators. YLT renders it
thus: “Adam, the [son] of God.” The Aramaic Bible in Plain English [APE] renders
this verse as “Adam, who was from God.”
48
Carson, 74.
49
Interestingly, the two basic ways of understanding the plural “sons of
God” (as referring to humans at times, or heavenly beings at other times), can
be seen in the Greek of the Septuagint. For example, “sons of God” is rendered
literally in Gen 6:2, 4, but, as “angels of God” (ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ), in Job 1:6 and
2:1.
 ADVENTIST APOLOGETICS 25

He advised His followers, “I am returning to my Father and your Fa-

ther.”50
In essential accord, Oscar Cullmann, noted that Jesus “always
says ‘my Father’ or ‘your Father,’ but never ‘our Father.’”51 Then, in case
some may wonder about the wording “our Father” in the well-known
Lord’s Prayer, Cullmann aptly explained: “The prayer which according to
Matthew begins with the last phrase [‘our Father’] is not spoken by Jesus
with the disciples, but is part of the prayer he taught them to pray: ‘When
you pray, pray like this’ (Matt. 6:9).”52 Emphasizing this particularity of
expression, James Stalker succinctly observed: “He never speaks to them
of God as their common Father.”53 This type of intentional precision of
phraseology relative to the relationship within the triune God, should
therefore not surprise the attentive reader of Scripture.
Now that it has been observed in the above diagrammatic out-
line, that the phrase “Son of God” has been employed exclusively
throughout the Bible to identify Jesus, the next natural question is: What
are the implications of such “Sonship”? While the limitations of this brief
exploratory essay will not permit a detailed explication of this matter, a
few pointers by Stalker, suggest an excellent starting place: “The strong-
est and most frequent suggestions as to what is implied in Sonship are to
be found in the deeds attributed to the Son. . . . Thus, He executes judg-
ment (John 5:22); He has life in Himself and quickeneth whom He will

50
Hatton, 34-35 (emphases original). Hatton is correct that Jesus was
giving a message to His followers (plural), despite the fact that He was speaking
directly to Mary, for He used the plural term for “your” (ὑμῶν).
51
Oscar Cullmann, translated by Shirley C. Guthrie, and Charles A. M.
Hall, The Christology of the New Testament, rev. (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1963), 289 (emphases added).
52
Ibid.
53
James Stalker, “Son of God, The,” The International Standard Bible En-
cyclopedia (emphasis added), https://www.bible studytools.com/dictionary/son
-of-god-the (accessed 5 April 2018). Stalker (ibid.), aware of the challenge to this
exclusive terminology, has responded: “H. J. Holtzmann and others have at-
tempted to make light of this, and even to speak of the opening words of the
Lord’s Prayer, ‘Our Father who art in heaven,’ as if Jesus might have uttered them
in company with the disciples; but the distinction is a vital one, and we do not
agree with those who can believe that Jesus could have uttered, for Himself
along with others, the whole of the Lord’s Prayer, including the petition, ‘Forgive
us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.’”
26 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

(John 5:26, 21); He gives eternal life (John 10:10), and it is the will of the
Father that all men should honor the Son, even as they do the Father
(John 5:23).”54
A second major line of evidence comes from the actions and re-
actions of people as they interacted with Jesus, during His life on earth.
For example, when Jesus had walked on the water, the record indicates
that, after He got into the boat, the disciples “came and worshiped Him
saying, ‘Truly You are the Son of God’” (Matt 14:33). This action revealed
that His followers had begun to recognize that He was worthy of worship,
something no believing Jew would do, unless it was to Deity.55
The earlier-mentioned article on the issue of the trinity in Scrip-
ture by Pfandl succinctly summarized as follows:
Jesus never directly asserted his divinity, nevertheless his teach-
ing was permeated with Trinitarian concepts. In accordance with the
Hebrew idea of son-ship, i.e., whatever the father is, that is the son
also, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Matt 9:27; 24:36; Luke
10:22; John 9:35-37; 11:4). The Jews understood that by claiming to
be the Son of God he was claiming equality with God, “Therefore the
Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He . . . also said that
God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18, cf.
10:33).56

Regarding this incident in John 5, Hatton rhetorically asks: “Could

it be any clearer that the Jews saw Jesus claiming an exclusive relation-
ship with God as His Father and that they understood that He would be
of the same nature as God?”57 Then, Hatton sums up: “To see Jesus as
the Son of God is to see Him as God.”58

54
Ibid.
55
Pfandl (ibid., 9) avers that, “this title [of ‘Son of God’] is a messianic
title (see Ps 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5). It stresses Jesus’ deity.” In his study on the
trinity in Revelation, Reynolds similarly suggests that “Son of God” (as in Rev
2:18; cf. 2:27; 3:5, 21; 14:1) implies the deity of Christ (Edwin Reynolds, “The
Trinity in the Book of Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society,
17/1 [Spring 2006], 63).
56
Pfandl, 9.
57
Hatton, 36-37.
58
Ibid., 37.
 ADVENTIST APOLOGETICS 27

At Jesus’ trial, the high priest challenged Him: “Tell us if You are
the Christ, the Son of God!” (Matt 26:63). When Jesus responded, “What
you said is true” (NLV), the immediate reaction of the high priest, pro-
vides the attentive reader with ample proof as to the Jewish understand-
ing of the phrase “Son of God.” Verse 65 states: “Then the high priest tore
his clothes, saying ‘He has spoken blasphemy!’” Blasphemy is explained
in John 10:33 as when one who is “only a human being” makes himself to
be God. If it were incorrect to consider Jesus as God, He could easily have
made such clear at this point in time; but He instead affirmed such an
understanding. As Hatton concisely concluded: “Wherever the Scriptures
call Christ the ‘Son of God’ they assert his true and proper Deity.”59
Incidentally, while this is admittedly an “argument from silence,”
it may be significant that nowhere in Scripture do we ever find Jesus re-
ferred to as the “Son of Yahweh (or Yah),” in the Old Testament, or the
“Son of the LORD” (as when it refers to Yahweh),60 in the New Testament.
If it were, this might have easily misled the reader into concluding that
Jesus should be seen as the literal (even “generated”) Son of God. Such
is, fortuitously, not the case.
Looking at it relationally, it is clear that “the imagery of Father
and Son points to the eternal and profound intimacy that has always ex-
isted between the first and second persons of the Godhead as divine
‘equals’ through all eternity (past, present, and future).”61

A Few Concluding Thoughts to Ponder

Thus, it appears that the following tentative conclusions may le-
gitimately be drawn from this textual analysis of the use of “son” in Scrip-
ture: First, when used in an obvious literal sense, the substantive “son/s”
may refer to biological descendant/s or perhaps the one/s adopted. It

59
Ibid., 35.
60
For example, when Heb 12:5, 6 quotes from Prov 3:11, 12.
61
Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John Reeve, The Trinity: Under-
standing God’s Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships (Hager-
stown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002), 97. Incidentally, such a statement, as
noted above, is not intended to minimize or set aside the “third person” of the
Godhead, the Holy Spirit. It is in the context of a discussion of the deity of Jesus
that such an appropriate statement has been made.
28 Jesus as the “Son of God” in Scripture

could also indicate a typical son, and even be used inclusively for males
and females. Second, at times the term “son/s” has been utilized figura-
tively in a generative sense, to describe a mentoring relationship, to indi-
cate a salvific reality, or to depict special election by God. Third, the noun
“son/s” is also used idiomatically, to imply ingrained personality traits, to
express vocational inheritance, to specify a generic usage, or in a typo-
logical manner.
In addition to examples of the general employment of “son/s” in
Scripture, the specific phrase, “son/s of man” was examined. This expres-
sion is used in the Bible as a means of identifying the nature of the sub-
ject, that is, one recognized as “human.” Finally, based on extensive anal-
ysis of the specific phrases “sons of God,” and “Son of God,” the following
has been deduced: Though the plural form is used more broadly to refer
to godly believers, unfallen beings, and even angels, the singular form of
the phrase, “Son of God,” is utilized consistently throughout Scripture. It
is always employed exclusively in relation to Jesus Christ. To no one else
is this phrase “Son of God” ever applied throughout the Bible. In other
words, this phrase appears to have been specifically reserved solely for
Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah.
Moreover, just as the “son of man” phrase is a biblical idiom em-
ployed to identify the nature of the referent as “human,” in the same
manner, the singular phrase “Son of God” is utilized in Scripture to iden-
tify the nature of the referent (in this case Jesus Christ), as being “God”—
an idiomatic understanding clearly acknowledged by the contemporaries
of Jesus Christ almost two thousand years ago. The words of the system-
atic theologian, Raoul Dederen, form a fitting conclusion to this brief
study: “It is evident that the name [i.e., the nomenclature, ‘Son of God’]
is indicative of the deity of Christ [Jesus]. In wondrous union with the Fa-
ther, but a different personality from Him, this Son of God, [is] fully God
and perfect man.”62

Raoul Dederen, “Reflections on the Doctrine of the Trinity,” 2, https:

62

//www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default /files/pdf/Doctrine%20of%2
0the%20Trinity.pdf (accessed 3 May 2018).