Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles

Rick Brown, 7 March 1999

Problems with sonship terminology in some language groups

In Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, the words for son (ben, bar) occur in a large number of idiomatic and
metaphorical phrases, including ones that deal with relationships between people, between people and
society, and between people, society or its leaders and God. In Arabic, on the other hand, certain
kinship terms are rarely used metaphorically. The words for “son” and “father” have a biological
meaning only (that is, progeny and progenitor, biological son and biological father). The terms are not
used broadly or metaphorically for other interpersonal relationships, not even for a nephew, a step-son,
or an adopted son.1 As a consequence, when Hebrew and Aramaic idioms for “sons of God” or “son of
God” have been expressed literally in Arabic, without sensitivity to the linguistic differences, it has led
the listeners to think that the reference is to genealogical relationships. In cultures with a polytheistic
worldview this is the natural interpretation, that is, that gods beget other gods, and the tendency is for
their members to misinterpret “son of God” to mean an offspring of some sort. As the Jewish scholar
Klausner (1955:527) points out, “For Jews [‘son of God’] was a common poetic-figurative expression.
But the Gentiles, who asserted that certain of their eminent men--Alexander the Great, Plato,
Pythagoras--had been fathered by gods who had visited mortal women, saw in this expression an actual
genetic relationship of Jesus to God.” Such thinking led to the Christian heresy called Arianism, which
held that at some point in time God begat Jesus in some spiritual way.
In pre-Islamic western Arabia the dominant religion was polytheistic. It seems that even some of the
ancient Arab “Christians” called the nasâra (from nasrâni, meaning Nazarene) understood ‘son of
God’ in a polytheistic way, saying that God consorted with Mary and begat another god, Jesus. Judging
from the evidence in the Qur’an, they claimed that Jesus was the result of God’s relationship with his
female companion (6:101), that Jesus and Mary were both gods alongside Allah (5:73, 116), and that
the prophets of old were his sons as well (21:26; 9:30). This view is condemned in the Qur’an as so
monstrous as to almost cause the heavens to burst and the earth to split and the mountains to collapse
(19:88-92). Against this it affirms that both Mary and Jesus ate food (5:75), meaning they were
humans, not gods, and it asserts that God does not have a consort or a child (72:3; 6:101), neither
begets nor is begotten (112), and that anyone who calls Jesus “son/offspring of God” is a kâfir,
meaning an infidel condemned to hell forever (9:30). The Qur’an scoffs at those who call themselves
“sons of God,” pointing out that these people are created beings, humans (5:18) and obviously not
gods. It warns that if anyone calls himself a god like Allah, then he is assured a place in hell (21:29).
But by condemning this doctrine and its proponents, the Qur’an has also perpetuated its memory, so
that even today virtually all Muslims know, fear and abhor this doctrine of three gods (Allah, Mary, and
their love child Jesus). Unfortunately, Muslim teachers commonly attribute this concept of divine
begetting to all Christians, and then use it to “prove” that Christianity and the Bible are corrupt and full
of error. So when Muslims encounter the phrase “God’s son” in literal translations of the Bible, they
not only misunderstand it, they are filled with loathing and conclude that the Bible is blasphemous and
to be avoided. When they challenge Christians about the phrase and hear it “explained,” they often
come away more convinced than ever that Christians are polytheists hopelessly damned to hell.

So there is a need to understand the term and be able to explain it to Muslims who ask about it. In
many parts of the Muslim world, translators of the Bible have avoided a literal translation of the
1
In some dialects abu “father of” can be used with regard to other kinds of biological production, such as abu
kirsh “father of a pot belly” and abu shanab “father of a moustache.”
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 2

phrase, since it is grossly misunderstood, and have used other titles. As the translators de Kuiper and
Newman (1977:435) observe, “with [a literal] translation misunderstandings are so great that even
continual explanations are of no use.” To most Muslims, phrases like “sons of God” and “Son of God”
are even more disgusting than a phrase like “G-d’s bastard” might be to Christians. The offense is
lessened somewhat if the phrase is explained, but for many people the negative associations are not
easily erased. They have grown up in dread of the term, feeling that hellfire awaits those who utter it.
So when they hear the phrase, even if they now know what it means, they become distracted from the
message and dwell on the confusion and offensiveness. At that point some quit reading or listening. It is
inevitable that the Scriptures will present stumbling blocks for some people, but they should concern
the message itself, not the way it is expressed.

Fortunately, many Christian workers are becoming sensitive to the feelings and preconceptions of
their Muslim friends and are communicating with them appropriately. This is evident in more recent
versions of the Jesus film and recent revisions and translations of the Bible. But none of this removes
the need for believers to be able to explain these sensitive phrases to those who ask them about it. And
to do that, they need to understand the phrases themselves.

The Biblical Phrase “Sons of God”

Hebrew and Aramaic often use constructions with the word for son to signify belonging, as in “sons of
Israel,” “sons of Babylon” (Ez 23:17), “sons of Zion” (Ps 149:2), “sons of the prophets” (2Ki 2:5),
“sons of man” (Ez 2:1; Dan 8:17), “sons of the Kingdom” (Mt 13:38), as well as for benefiting from
something, as in “sons of the resurrection” (Lk 20:36), “sons of light” (Lk 16:8; Jn 12:36), “son of
peace” (Lk 10:6). Similarly the phrase “sons of God,” in both the singular and the plural, is used in the
Bible to refer to individuals, peoples, and angels who willingly belong to God and who enjoy His
special favor. God called the Israelites and those associated with them to accept a covenant by which
they would be his faithful and chosen people; He would care for them as their “Father” (De 32:6; Jer
31:9), and they would corporately be His “son” or “sons”:
Israel is my first-born son ... (Exodus 4:22; see Hos 11:1)2
‫ن ُتطْلِقَ ا ْبنِي ِل َي ْعبُ َدنِي‬
ْ َ‫ َفَأنَا قُ ْلتُ َلكَ أ‬،ُ‫سرَائِيلُ ُهوَ ا ْبنِي ا ْل ِب ْكر‬
ْ ‫ ِإ‬:ّ‫ ’هَذَا كَلمُ الرّب‬،َ‫عوْن‬
َ ‫َو َتقُو ُل لِفِر‬
You are the sons of the LORD your God; ... (De 14:1)
ِ‫شعُوبِ الّتِي عَلَى َوجْهِ الرْض‬
ّ ‫ختَا َركُمْ َل ُه مِنْ َبيْنِ كُلّ ال‬
ْ ‫ َوهُ َو قَدِ ا‬.ْ‫شعْبٌ مُقّدّسٌ ِل ْلمَ ْولَى إَِل ِهكُم‬
َ ْ‫ل ّن ُكم‬
َ
ّ‫ِل َتكُونُوا شَ ْع َب ُه ا ْلخَاص‬
In the New Testament, the sons of the kings are their citizens, as opposed to conquered subjects (Mt
17:25). Similarly, being “sons of God” is equivalent to being “sons of the Kingdom” (Mt 13:38),
meaning those accepted by God for eternal life with Him in His Kingdom:
Romans 9.26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called
‘sons of the living God.’ ”
ِ‫ع ْونَ أَ ْبنَاءَ ال‬
َ ‫ َأنّهُ ُهنَاكَ ُي ْد‬،‫س ُتمْ شَ ْعبِي‬
ْ َ‫ ل‬:ِ‫وَيَكُونُ فِي الْمَوْضِعِ الّذِي قِيلَ لَهُمْ فِيه‬9:26 ‫رو‬
ّ‫الْحَي‬
These are contrasted with those who are “sons of the world” (Lk 16:8), “sons of the evil one” (Mt
13:38), “child of hell” (Mt 23:15), “son of perdition” (Jn 17:12)
So the phrase “sons of God” generally means the people of God, also called “His saints,” the ones

2
Biblical quotations are quoted from the Revised Standard Version, 2nd edition 1971, except where otherwise
indicated.
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 3

consecrated to God.3 Newman and Stine (1988:113) recommended expressing this metaphor as a simile:
The phrase sons of God (or, children of God) causes a problem in cultures where readers would not
understand this phrase to be figurative and, further, would not accept the idea of God having physical
offspring. Translators in these cases sometimes use similes, as in “God will say they are like children to
him,” “God will consider them as if they were his children,” or “God will have a relationship with (or,
will care for) them like a father with his children.”
Most Muslims, however, are so sensitive about attributing sons to God that even a sonship simile can
be repugnant to them. Islam does not recognize adoption, so that simile does not work either. The most
natural thing is to explain “sons of God” and “saints” by using expressions they already know and
understand, such as “the righteous servants of God” (‘ibâdu llâhi S-SâliHîn) or “the people of God”
(sha‘abu llâh). This is especially appropriate in passages referring to the believers’ current standing
with God (Mt 5:9, Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26).
.َ‫ لَنّ ُهمْ َأ ْبنَاءَ الِ ُي ْدعَ ْون‬،ِ‫طُوبَـى لِصَانِعِي السّلَم‬ 9 :5‫مت‬
.ِ‫ فَأُول ِئكَ ُهمْ أَ ْبنَاءُ ال‬،ِ‫لَنّ ُكلّ اّلذِينَ َينْقَادُونَ بِرُوحِ ال‬ 14 :8 ‫رو‬
Another paraphrase is “companions of God” (’awliyâ’u llâh). This phrase was used to translate “sons
of God” in The Elegant Gospels, one of the most ancient Arabic translations of the Gospels. This
expression is especially appropriate when explaining passages that refer to the believers’ future state
(Luke 20:36; Eph 1:5; and perhaps Rom 8:19).
ْ‫ ِإذْ ُهم‬،ِ‫ وَهُمْ َأبْنَاءُ ال‬،ِ‫لئِكَة‬َ َ‫ لَنّهُمْ مِ ْثلُ الْم‬،‫ِإذْ لَ َيسْ َتطِيعُونَ َأنْ َيمُوتُوا َأيْضًا‬36 :20 ‫لو‬
.ِ‫َأ ْبنَاءُ الْقِيَامَة‬
ِ‫لنَ َأ ْبنَاءِ ال‬
َ ْ‫لنّ ا ْنتِظَارَ الْخَلِيقَةِ َيتَ َوقّعُ اسْتِع‬
َ 19 :8 ‫رو‬

‫ مختارو ال‬/ ‫ أحباء ال‬/ ‫ عباد ال الصالحون‬/ ‫ شعب ال‬/ ‫ أهل مملكة ال‬/ ‫ أولياء ال‬/ ‫إ‬

The Title “Son of Man”

The indefinite construction “a son of man” was the normal Aramaic idiom for a human, but the definite
construction, “the son of man,” was not used except in reference to the human-like ruler in Daniel 7:13.
This passage, repeated below, inspired great hope that instead of a merely human Messiah, a heavenly
person “like a son of man” would come from heaven, save people of all nations from sin and evil, and
be their king in a kingdom established by God:
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor
shall its sovereignty be left to another people. (Daniel 2:44)
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he
came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and
kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting
dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. ... the saints of the
Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever and ever.’ (Daniel 7:13-
14, 18)
This passage introduced the idea that the Christ/Messiah would not just be a restored king of the Jews
who would give them dominion over other peoples, but rather he would save and rule all peoples
inclusively.
This concept was elaborated in certain pre-Christian Jewish writings such as 1 Enoch (quoted at
Jude 1:14). 1 Enoch speaks of “that Son of Man” and “the Son of Man” in regard to a pre-existent
heavenly being who will come to establish his kingdom, destroy evil, rule the earth, judge all people at
the resurrection, and usher in a new world that is free of all evil. Other titles used in 1 Enoch include
3
In Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7, the phrase “sons of God” is applied to the righteous residents of heaven, which
presumably include the faithful angels but not Satan and his followers. The phrase is used in a similar sense of
resurrected believers in Luke 20:36.
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 4

“the Elect One,” “the Righteous One,” “the Light of the Nations” (48:4), God’s Messiah” (52:4), and
God’s “Son” (105:2). Similar titles or expectations are found in other works of that time, such as IV
Ezra, II Baruch and the Testament of Abraham.
But while the first-century Jews were united in their hope for the Messiah and his kingdom, they
were divided with respect to their expectations for him and his kingdom. Some awaited the coming of
Daniel’s heavenly universal ruler, “the Son of Man,” who would rule all nations equitably in an age of
peace and righteousness. But most Jews awaited a nationalist leader who would lead them in successful
battle against all of their enemies and make Israel the righteous ruler of the world. They used a variety
of royal Davidic titles to describe their awaited commander, among them “Messiah/Christ,” “Son of
David,” and “Son of God.”
Jesus clearly identified with the “Son of Man” concept and avoided the titles associated with Jewish
nationalism. He used the “Son of Man” title when He sought to explain Himself, and He made very
remarkable claims for Himself.
He declared that He (the Son of Man) has
authority higher than the Law (Mt 12:8 || Mk 2:28 || Lk 6:5)
authority to forgive sins (Mt 9:6 || Mk 2:10 || Lk 5:24)
the power to raise the dead (Jn 5:21,28; cf. Php 3:21),
the power even to raise Himself from the dead (Jn 2:19; 10:18)
the authority to grant eternal life to others (Jn 17:2; Mt 25:34,46)
a kingdom not of this world (John 18:36-37)
and that at the end He (the Son of Man) will
come in His glory (Mt 25:31), the glory of His Father (Mt 16:27)
send His angels (Mt 13:41; 16:27) into His kingdom
sit on His glorious throne (Mt 19:28; 25:31)
judge everyone in all the nations (Mt 16:27; 25:31ff)
He declared that the Father had given him
all things (Mt 11:27; Jn 13:3; 16:15; Lk 10:22; cf. Eph 4:10),
all authority and power (Mt 28:18; cf. Jn 3:35; 17:2; Eph 1:10),
all judgment (Jn 5:22; Mt 25:31-46; cf. Ac 10:42),
all of His sheep (Jn 6:37,45; 10:27,29),
every word He said (Jn 8:28, 38, 47; 12:49-50; 14:10; 17:8)
every deed He did (Jn 5:19, 36; 14:10)
He further declared that He
existed before Abraham (Jn 8:58)
proceeded and came forth from God (Jn 8:42; 7:29; 13:3)
is the only one who has seen God (Jn 6:46)
is the one who knows God (Lk 10:22; Mt 11:27)
came from heaven (Jn 3:13; also with “I” at 3:31; 6:33, 38, 51)
came to give His life as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28, Mk 10:45)
is present wherever two or three gather in His name (Mt 18:20)
and that He and the Father are one (Jn 10:30, 38; 14:9-11; cf. 5:18)
It may be noted that many or most of the attributes that Jesus attributed to the Son of Man were ones
which were usually reserved for God alone.
The phrase “Son of Man” is clearly an exalted title in its first-century Jewish context, especially as
Jesus used it. Outside of Jewish contexts, however, it had so little meaning that the Epistles drop it
completely in favor of other titles, principally “Lord.” It is absent from the preaching in Acts as well,
occurring only in Steven’s exclamation in 7:56. Newman and Nida (1980:52) note that “for the reader
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 5

of English who does not have the theological training, ‘Son of Man’ is generally either a zero term, or
else it is misunderstood as a reference to Jesus’ human nature.” Some translations in other parts of the
world have used expressions like “the Man from Heaven,” “the Man from God,” “He who was born a
man,” and even “the Messiah” (Living Bible). Many translations simply use the prounoun “I” when
Jesus is referring to himself as “Son of Man.” Jesus himself often switched between using “Son of
Man” and using first-person pronouns.4 Newman (1970), however, argues that the title “Son of Man”
should ideally be translated in a way that expresses Jesus’ divine authority. The New Testament writers
themselves, when not quoting Jesus, refer to him as “Lord” rather than “Son of Man.” It is a title that
Jesus accepted and even encouraged (Jn 13:13; Mt 25:45). A new Arabic translation, Kitab Allah,5 has
adopted the translation “Lord of Mankind” (sayyidu l-bashar) in place of the incomprehensible ibnu
l-’insân (“Son of the Person”). This expression keeps the “Man” part of the original form and the
rulership part of the original concept.
So when explaining the title “Son of Man” to those who ask, one can refer to the passage in Daniel
7 which describes one who is “like a man” and is made “lord of all” (sayyidu l-kull) (Acts 10:36).

The Titles “Messiah” and “Son of God” in the Old Testament

Getting back to Old Testament times, God ruled His special Old Testament kingdom through the agency
of King David and those of his sons whom He anointed, and they related to God as his vice-regents. A
later king referred to this vice-regency as “the kingdom of the LORD in the hand of the sons of David”
(2 Chronicles 13:8). As a result, although the Scripture writers call David and his successors “king of
Israel” and refer to the kingdom as his, they also acknowledge that it is actually God who is the “King
of Israel” (Isa 44:6), that the kingdom and throne are God’s (1Ch 29:11; 2Ch 9:8), and that the chosen
ruler (messiah) is His servant and their Prince (Eze 37:25; Isa 9:5; Jer 30:21). The one chosen by God
to rule His people was also called “His anointed” (lit. “His messiah,” Ps 2:2; 132:17) as well as just
“His king” (Ps 18:50), meaning appointed by God and accountable to Him.
As was common at that time6, the king’s vice-regency to God was expressed by calling him God’s
“son” (Ps 2.7; 72:1; Isa 9:5), even His “first-born” (Ps 89:27). This metaphor indicated both that the
king’s authority came from God and that his kingdom was a trust from God, to whom he must give
account. Similarly, the chosen king’s enthronement is compared to an adoption or begetting:
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of
men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from
Saul, whom I put away from before you. (2 Samuel 7:14-15; parallel: 1 Chronicles 17:13-14)
ُ‫ َوُأ َثبّت‬،َ‫ج مِنْ صُ ْل ِبك‬
ُ ُ‫خر‬
ْ ‫ أُقِيمُ َلكَ خَلِي َف ًة مِنْ َنسِْلكَ الّذِي َي‬،َ‫حيَا ُتكَ َورَقَدْتَ مَعَ آبَا ِئك‬
َ ْ‫َف َمتَى ِا ْن َت َهت‬ 12
7 ‫صم‬1
َ‫ ُو ُهو‬،ُ‫ن َأبَاه‬
ُ ‫َأنَا َأكُو‬ 14
.ِ‫عرْشَ مُ ْلكِهِ إِلَى ال َبد‬
َ ُ‫ وََأنَا ُأ َثبّت‬،‫هُوَ اّلذِي َي ْبنِي َب ْيتًا لِي‬ 13
.ُ‫مُ ْلكَه‬
.‫ َف َيكُونُونَ كَا ْل َعصَا فِي َيدِي‬،َ‫ أُعَا ِق ُب ُه بِأَنْ ُأسَّلطَ عََل ْي ِه النّاس‬،َ‫طأ‬
َ ْ‫ إِنْ َأخ‬.َ‫ن ِا ْب ِني‬
ُ ‫َيكُو‬
Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “I have set my king on Zion,
my holy hill.” I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten
you. (Psalm 2:5-7; see also Isaiah 9:6a).

4
The following passages and their parallels exemplify switching between first-person pronouns and the title
“Son of Man”: Mt 8:20-21; 12:30-32; 16:13-15, 24-27; 19:27; 26:23-24; 26:45-46; Mk 8:38; Lk 12:8; Jn 6:26-
27, 53-54; 8:28; 12:23-26.
5
The New Testament of Kitab Allah consists of the fourth revision of Injil Sharif. The whole Bible is being
prepared for publication by the International Center in Marseilles. The author received access to a
prepublication copy.
6
Hoffmeier (1997) notes that the Jews were not alone in calling their king “Son of God.” When a Pharaoh was
enthroned, he was given the title “Son of God.” Letters and documents surviving from the first century show
that “son of god” was a title commonly used for Caesar (as was “lord”).
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 6

‫ "َأنَا‬: ]‫ وَيَقُولُ [ال‬6 ... ِ‫ختَا ِره‬

ْ ‫ض ّد ا ْل َمسِيحِ ُم‬
ِ ‫ض ّد الِ َو‬
ِ ،‫حكّا ُم َمعًا‬
ُ ‫ج َتمَعَ ا ْل‬
ْ ‫ وَا‬،ِ‫لرْض‬
َ ‫س َت َع ّد مُلُوكُ ا‬
ْ ‫ ا‬22 ‫مز‬
َ‫ "َأ ْنت‬:‫ فَ َقدْ قَالَ لِي‬،ُ‫خبِرُ ِبمَا أَعَْلنَهُ ال‬
ْ ‫ ُأ‬7 ".َ‫جبَليَ ا ْلمُ َقدّس‬
َ ،َ‫صيُون‬
ْ ‫حكُمُ ِت‬
ْ ‫ختَ ْرتُ لِي مَِلكًا َي‬
ْ‫ا‬
‫خرِهَا مُ ْلكًا‬
ِ ‫ض إلَى آ‬
َ ‫ل ْر‬
َ ‫ وَا‬،‫لمَ َم َنصِيبًا‬
ُ‫كا‬
َ ‫ط َي‬
ِ ‫ب ِمنّي َفأُع‬
ْ ‫ اطُْل‬8 .َ‫ص ْرتُ َأبَاك‬
ِ َ‫ َأنَا ا ْل َي ْوم‬،‫ا ْبنِي‬
.َ‫َلك‬
Although the people of God’s kingdom could call God “Father” or “our Father” (Isa 64:8), it seems
it was only the anointed king who could call Him “my Father,” reflecting their ideal relationship:
He shall cry to me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the
first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth. (Psalm 89:26-27)
ْ‫ أَعْلَى مِن‬.ّ‫ل فَ ْوقَ ا ْلكُل‬
َ ّ‫جعَلُهُ الَو‬
ْ ‫ َأنَا َأ ْيضًا َأ‬27 .‫جأُ َنجَاتِي‬
َ ‫ َأ ْنتَ َأبِي َوإَِلهِي َومََل‬:ُ‫ يَدْعُونِي َوَيقُول‬2689 ‫مز‬
.‫مُلُوكِ ال ّد ْنيَا‬
It is clear that the royal titles “messiah” and “son of God” were more or less equivalent, and the
second Psalm uses both. But in the Muslim world, kinship terms are not used for the relationship
between God and his chosen king, and the meaning of “messiah” is not known. But these passages can
be clarified by explaining that the phrase means “God’s chosen king” or “the prince over God’s
people.”

The Titles “Messiah” and “Son of God” in the New Testament

The Davidic monarchy appeared to end with the exile, but God had promised that David’s throne
would last forever, and the people hoped that God would raise up a descendant of David to be the
ultimate messiah king. Several prophecies, in addition to Daniel 2 and 7, had encouraged them to hope
for a special king who would not die and whose divinely-appointed kingdom would never end:
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth
for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. (Micah 5:2)
‫س َيكُونُ حَا ِكمًا عَلَى‬
َ ‫ن‬
ْ َ‫ك َيطْلَعُ لِي م‬
ِ ‫ َف ِم ْن‬،‫حكّامِ َيهُوذَا‬
ُ َ‫صغِي َرةٌ َبيْن‬
َ ِ‫ مَعَ َأ ّنك‬،َ‫ت َلحْمَ أَ ْفرَاتَة‬
َ ‫يَا َب ْي‬2 :5 ‫مي‬
.ِ‫ل َزل‬
َ ‫ ُمنْذُ ا‬،ِ‫ َوَأصْلُهُ ُمنْذُ ال َقدِيم‬،َ‫سرَائِيل‬
ْ ‫ِإ‬
Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him,
he will bring forth justice to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1, source of the “Servant” title and echoed at Jesus’
baptism and transfiguration. See also Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12; 42:1-4; Mt 12:18-21; Ac 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30)
.ِ‫لمَم‬
ُ ِ‫ َف ُي ْعطِي الحَقّ ل‬،ِ‫ضعُ رُوحِي عََليْه‬
َ ‫ َأ‬.‫حنِي‬
ُ ‫ختَارِي الّذِي ُي ُف ِر‬
ْ ‫ ُم‬،ُ‫ضدُه‬
ُ ‫ع‬
ْ َ‫عبْدِي اّلذِي أ‬
َ َ‫ َهذَا هُو‬1 :42 ‫إش‬
The LORD says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.” (Psalm 110:1,
source of “Lord” as a messianic title. It is quoted or echoed 33 times in the New Testament.)
.َ‫حتّى َأضَعَ أَعْدَا َءكَ َتحْتَ قَدَمْيك‬
َ ‫ "ِاجْلِسْ عَنْ َيمِينِي‬: ]‫ل الُ ِل َموْليَ [للربي‬
َ ‫قَا‬ 1 :110 ‫مز‬
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, ... (Isa 11:1, one source of the “Son of David” title.
See Isa 11:1-10, Jeremiah 23:5-6, 33:15; Eze 37:25-26; 1 Chronicles 17:11-12)
.ِ‫جذُو ِره‬
ُ ‫ن‬
ْ ِ‫غصْنٌ م‬
ُ ‫ وَ َي ْنمُو‬،‫وَ َيطْلَعُ َف ْرعٌ مِنْ سَاقِ َيسّى‬ 1 :11 ‫إش‬
َ‫ وَ َي ْعمَلُ العَ ْدل‬،ِ‫حكْمَة‬
ِ ‫ك بِال‬
ُ ‫ مَِلكًا َيمِْل‬،‫ أُقِيمُ فِيهَا ِل َب ْيتِ دَا ُودَ َنسْلً صَاِلحًا‬،ٌ‫س َت ْأتِي َأيّام‬
َ " :ّ‫ل الرّب‬
َ ‫ َوقَا‬5 :23 ‫إر‬
.ِ‫وَالصّلحَ فِي البِلد‬
ْ‫ن فِيهَا ُهم‬
َ ‫س ُكنُو‬
ْ َ‫ َفي‬.ْ‫سكَنَ فِيهَا آبَا ُؤ ُكم‬
َ ‫ وَاّلتِي‬،َ‫ط ْيُتهَا ِل َع ْبدِي دَا ُود‬
َ ْ‫ل ْرضِ اّلتِي أَع‬
َ ‫ن فِي ا‬
َ ‫س ُكنُو‬
ْ ‫ َو َي‬25 :27 ‫حز‬
.ِ‫لبَد‬
َ ‫عبْدِي دَاوُدُ َرئِيسًا عََل ْيهِ ْم إِلَى ا‬
َ ُ‫ َو َيكُون‬.ِ‫لبَد‬
َ ‫َوأَوْلدُهُمْ وَأَوْلدُ أَول ِدهِ ْم إِلَى ا‬
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 7

I will be his father, and he shall be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him
who was before you, but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall
be established for ever. (1 Chronicles 17:13-14, one source of the “Son of God” title. See also Psalms 2;
72:1; and 89:27, which came to be regarded as Messianic. Psalm 2:7 is echoed in Jesus’ baptism and
transfiguration and is quoted in Acts 13:32-33 and Hebrews 1:5; in royal usage the “begetting” refers to
enthronement, in this case at the resurrection and ascension of Jesus; similarly in Romans 1:4.)
.َ‫ع ُتهَا عَنْ شَا ُولَ الّذِي كَانَ َقبَْلك‬
ْ َ‫عنْهُ َكمَا نَز‬
َ ‫ح َمتِي‬
ْ ‫ع َر‬
ُ ‫ وَل َأ ْن َز‬.‫ وَهُوَ َيكُونُ ا ْبنِي‬،ُ‫َأنَا َأكُونُ َأبُوه‬ 13
17 ‫أخ‬1
.‫ع ْرشُهُ ثَا ِبتًا‬
َ ُ‫ل َبدِ َيكُون‬
َ ‫ إِلَى ا‬،ِ‫لبَد‬
َ ‫ َبلْ أُقِيمُهُ عَلَى َب ْيتِي َو َممَْل َكتِي إِلَى ا‬14
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given ... (Isaiah 9:6-7, one of the sources of “Son” as a messianic
title. Note that in this context the birthing metaphor is a reference to a new king being anointed and
enthroned, rather than a baby being born. See also “the Son” in more recent translations of Psalm 2:12.)
‫ َأبًا‬،‫ إَِلهًا قَدِيرًا‬،‫عجِيبًا‬
َ ‫ وَيُدْعَى ُمشِيرًا‬،ِ‫ َتكُونُ السّ ْلطَ ُة فِي َي ِده‬،ٌ‫ َوُي ْعطَى َلنَا ابْن‬،ٌ‫لنّهُ يُوَلدُ َلنَا وَلَد‬
َ 6
9 ‫إش‬
،ِ‫عرْشِ دَا ُودَ َو َممَْل َكتِه‬
َ ‫ عَلَى‬،ٍ‫ َت ْمتَدّ سُلْطتُهُ وَ َيكُونُ سَلمُهُ بِل ِنهَايَة‬7 .ِ‫ َرئِيسَ السّلم‬،‫َأ َب ِديّا‬
.ِ‫ل َبد‬
َ ‫ مِنَ النَ َوإِلَى ا‬،ِ‫س ِندَهَا بِا ْلعَ ْدلِ وَالصّلح‬
ْ ‫ِلُي َثبّ َتهَا َو َي‬
By the time of Jesus, the Jewish teachers were interpreting all of the royal “son” and “messiah”
passages in the Bible as Messianic, along with less obvious passages such as Genesis 3:15 and 49:10,
Numbers 24:17-19, Ps 80:15, and perhaps Ps 118:22-29. (Note that the Greek word for “Messiah” is
christos, from which we get “Christ” in English.) But as was mentioned previously, expectations
differed among the Jews. The nationalists were expecting God to send a military leader to destroy the
Gentile armies, expel sinners and foreigners, and restore the kingdom of Israel, which in turn would
dominate the world on behalf of God. They were ready to go to war as soon as the Messiah appeared.
They called their hero “the King of Israel,” “the Messiah of Israel,” “the Lord Messiah,” “the Son of
David,” “God’s Messiah,” and “God’s Son.”7 This kind of messianic hope is also exemplified in Psalm
of Solomon 17, composed by Pharisees in the century before Christ. (This Psalm, by the way, is the
earliest record of the use of the title “Messiah” for the awaited savior king.)
21 See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the
time known to you, O God. 22 Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers, to
purge Jerusalem from gentiles who trample her to destruction; 23 in wisdom and in righteousness to
drive out the sinners from the inheritance; to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar; 24 To
shatter all their substance with an iron rod; to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his
mouth.... 27 He will not tolerate unrighteousness (even) to pause among them, and any person who
knows wickedness shall not live with them.... 30 And he will have gentile nations serving him under his
yoke... 32 An he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness
among them in his days, for all shall be holy, and their king shall be the Lord Messiah.
The passage below from the Dead Sea Scrolls exemplifies this in language similar to Luke 1:32-33
and Daniel 7, but more violent and nationalistic: it is the Jews who conquer and rule the world, and the
Messiah is simply their leader.
The son of God he will be proclaimed and the son of the Most High they will call him.
Like the sparks of the vision, so will be their kingdom.
They will reign for years on the earth and they will trample all.
People will trample people and one province another province
until the people of God will arise and all will rest from the sword.
Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom and all their path will be in truth.
They will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth, and
all the provinces will pay homage to them.
The Great God is their helper. He will wage war for them. He will give peoples into their hands and all
of them (the peoples) He will cast before them.

7
Newman and Stine (1988:521) give a rather broader definition: “In the Old Testament and in Judaism, ‘Son
of God’ is rather frequently used of persons whom God has chosen to act in his behalf and for the benefit of his
people” (521). They suggest that when the Jews used “Son of God” for the Messiah, “the primary reference
was to the moral relationship of love and filial obedience which should exist between a father and his son”
(80).
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 8

Their dominion will be an eternal dominion8.

Compare this with the passage from Luke:
You shall conceive and bear a son, and you shall give him the name Jesus. He will be great; he will
bear the title “Son of the Most High”; the Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David, and
he will be king over Israel for ever; his reign shall never end. (Luke 1:31-33 NEB)
ّ ‫ وَا ْبنَ الْعَلِـ‬،‫عظِيمًا‬
‫ي‬ َ ُ‫ هذَا َيكُون‬.َ‫ح َبلِينَ وَ َتلِدِينَ ا ْبنًا وَ ُتسَمّينَهُ َيسُوع‬
32
ْ َ‫ وَهَا أَنْتِ سَت‬1 ‫لو‬ 31

‫ وَيَمْلِكُ عَلَى َبيْتِ يَعْقُوبَ إِلَى‬،ِ‫ وَيُ ْعطِيهِ الرّبّ الِلهُ كُرْسِيّ دَاوُدَ أَبِيه‬،‫ُي ْدعَى‬
33

.»ٌ‫ وَلَ يَكُونُ لِمُلْكِهِ نِهَايَة‬،ِ‫الَ َبد‬

Note that IV Ezra also uses phrases like “my son the Messiah” (7:28, 29) and “my son” (13:32,37,52;
14:9) as Messianic titles. So it is clear that the titles “Messiah” and “Son of God” were still equivalent
in the first century, but that their meaning had narrowed. Instead of meaning just any king chosen by
God to rule God’s people Israel, as in the Old Testament, the titles were used to refer to a unique
undying king through whom Israel would gain the final victory.
But Jesus rejected the nationalistic view of the Messiah and his Kingdom, and He avoided the
Messianic titles that the nationalists used, such as “Messiah” and “Son of God,” although He did not
reject them. He insisted instead on calling Himself “the Son of Man,” the title of the universalist
Messiah, and He specifically sought to include the Gentiles in his kingdom. 9 If Jesus had called Himself
“the Messiah/Christ,” then those zealots with a nationalistic concept of the Messiah might have
immediately acknowledged Him as king and risen up in revolt against Herod and the Romans.10 For
this reason Jesus not only avoided these titles but he forbade others to use them of Him, in public at
least. He even forbade the demons to use these titles:
And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them, and would
not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ. (Luke 4:41)
[ُ‫«أَ ْنتَ ]الْمَسِيح‬:ُ‫شيَاطِينُ أَيْضًا تَخْرُجُ ِمنْ َكثِيرِينَ وَهِيَ َتصْرُخُ وَتَقُول‬ َ ْ‫وَكَا َنت‬41 :4 ‫لو‬
.ُ‫ لَنّ ُهمْ عَرَفُوهُ أَنّهُ الْمَسِيح‬،َ‫ا ْبنُ الِ!» فَا ْنتَهَرَهُمْ وَلَمْ َي َدعْ ُهمْ َيتَ َكلّمُون‬
ْ‫سمَحُ َلهَا أَن‬
ْ ‫خهَا وَل َي‬
ُ ‫" فَكَانَ ُي َو ّب‬.ِ‫ "َأ ْنتَ ابْنُ ال‬:ُ‫صرُخ‬
ْ ‫ت َت‬
ْ ‫ َوكَا َن‬،َ‫ن َكثِيرِين‬
ْ ِ‫جتْ م‬
َ ‫خ َر‬
َ ‫شيَاطِينُ َأ ْيضًا‬
ّ ‫وَال‬
.ُ‫عرَفَتْ َأنّ ُه ا ْل َمسِيح‬
َ ‫ل ّنهَا‬
َ ‫َت َتكَلّ َم‬
This passage shows not only that Jesus did not want it being announced that He was the awaited King
of the Jews; it also demonstrates that “the Son of God” and “the Christ” were still synonymous titles.
In general, when people addressed him as “Christ/Messiah” or “Son of God,” Jesus changed it to
“Son of Man,” which was the higher title and was free of nationalistic connotations:
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” .... Then he strictly charged the
disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he
[Mark: the Son of man] must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things.... (Matthew 16:16, 20-21a)
ٍ‫ حِي َن ِئذ‬... .»!ّ‫«أَ ْنتَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ا ْبنُ الِ الْحَي‬:َ‫فَأَجَابَ سِمْعَانُ بُطْ ُرسُ وَقَال‬
20 16
16 ‫مت‬
.ُ‫أَوْصَى تَلَمِيذَهُ َأنْ لَ يَقُولُوا لَحَدٍ ِإنّهُ ]يَسُوعُ[ الْمَسِيح‬
Nathaniel answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”11.... And he said to
8
Qumran document 4Q246, as translated by Vermes (1997:577). See also 4Q174, which interprets the royal
son in 1 Samuel 7:12-14 as a reference to the Messianic “Branch of David.”
9
The inclusion of the Gentiles is supported by passages such as Isa 2:4; 11:10; 42:1; 52:10,15; 55:4-5; Ps 2:7-
8, and Amos 9:11 (as quoted in Acts 15:16-17). Their inclusion by Jesus is mentioned in Mt 8:10-12; 21:43;
24:14; 28:19; John 10:16, as well as other passages.
10
This readiness to rise up was based on Psalm 110:3. John 6:15 narrates Jesus’ withdrawal from the crowds to
avoid being made king by force, and the rest of the chapter shows that finally He just offended them to a degree
sufficient to drive them away.
11
“Since both these term are equally Messianic titles, there is no anticlimax in the present passage which
places King of Israel after Son of God. The order is perfectly logical and reflects a definite temporal sequence,
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 9

him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and
descending upon the Son of man.” (John 1:49, 51)
ُ‫ َأنْتَ ا ْبنُ الِ! أَنْتَ مَلِكُ إِسْرَائِيلَ!» أَجَابَ َيسُوع‬،ُ‫«يَا مُعَّلم‬:ُ‫ أَجَابَ َن َثنَائِيلُ وَقالَ لَه‬1 ‫يو‬
50 49

َ‫ظم‬
َ ْ‫« َهلْ آ َمنْتَ لَنّي قُلْتُ لَكَ إِنّي رََأيْتُكَ تَحْتَ التّينَةِ؟ سَوْفَ تَرَى َأع‬:ُ‫وَقَالَ لَه‬
،ً‫ ِمنَ النَ تَرَ ْونَ السّمَاءَ مَفْتُوحَة‬:ْ‫«الْحَقّ الْحَقّ أَقُولُ لَكُم‬:ُ‫ِمنْ هذَا!» وَقَالَ لَه‬
51

.»ِ‫لئِكَةَ الِ يَصْ َعدُونَ وَ َينْزِلُونَ عَلَى ا ْبنِ الِنْسَان‬

َ َ‫وَم‬
... tell us [the high priest said] if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so.
But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man [Dan 7:13] seated at the right hand of Power [Ps
110:1], and coming on the clouds of heaven [Dan 7:13] (Mt 26:63-64)
‫ وَأَصْ َعدُوهُ إِلَى‬،ُ‫ رُؤَسَاءُ الْكَ َهنَةِ وَالْكَتَبَة‬:ِ‫شيَخَةُ الشّعْب‬ ْ َ‫وَلَمّا كَانَ النّهَارُ اجْتَمَعَتْ م‬ 66
23 ‫لو‬
َ‫«ِإنْ قُلْتُ لَكُمْ ل‬:ْ‫ فَقَالَ لَ ُهم‬.»!‫ فَ ُقلْ لَنَا‬،َ‫«ِإنْ ُكنْتَ َأنْتَ الْمسِيح‬:َ‫مَجْمَعِ ِهمْ قَا ِئلِين‬
67

ُ‫ ُم ْنذُ النَ يَكُونُ ا ْبن‬.‫طلِقُونَنِي‬

69
ْ ‫ وَِإنْ سَأَلْتُ لَ تُجِيبُونَنِي وَلَ ُت‬،َ‫صدّقُون‬
68
َ ‫ُت‬
:ْ‫«أَفََأنْتَ ا ْبنُ الِ؟» فَقَالَ لَهُم‬:ُ‫ فَقَالَ الْجَمِيع‬.»ِ‫عنْ َيمِينِ قُوّةِ ال‬
70
َ ‫الِ ْنسَانِ جَالِسًا‬
ُ‫حن‬ ْ َ‫جتُنَا بَ ْعدُ إِلَى شَهَادَةٍ؟ لَنّنَا ن‬
َ ‫«مَا حَا‬:‫ فَقَالُوا‬.»َ‫«َأ ْنتُمْ تَقُولُونَ ِإنّي َأنَا هُو‬
71

‫ وَا ْب َتدَأُوا‬،َ‫ فَقَامَ ُكلّ جُمْهُورِ ِهمْ وَجَاءُوا بِهِ إِلَى بِيلَطُس‬: .»ِ‫سَمِعْنَا ِمنْ فَمِه‬
2 1 23

ٌ‫ َويَمْنَعُ َأنْ ُتعْطَى جِزْيَة‬،َ‫سدُ الُمّة‬ ِ ْ‫«إِنّنَا وَجَدْنَا هذَا يُف‬:َ‫شتَكُونَ عََليْهِ قَائِلِين‬
ْ ‫َي‬
ُ‫«َأنْتَ َملِك‬:ً‫ فَسََألَهُ بِيلَطُسُ قِائِل‬.»ٌ‫ ِإنّهُ هُوَ مَسِيحٌ مَلِك‬:ً‫ قَائِل‬،َ‫لِقَيْصَر‬
3

.»ُ‫«أَنْتَ تَقُول‬:َ‫ا ْليَهُودِ؟» فَأَجَابَهُ وَقَال‬

ْ‫«أَسْتَحْلِفُكَ بِالِ الْحَيّ َأن‬:ُ‫ فَأَجَابَ رَئِيسُ الْكَ َهنَةِ وَقَالَ لَه‬.‫وَأَمّا َيسُوعُ فَكَانَ سَا ِكتًا‬ 63
26 ‫مت‬
‫«أَنْتَ قُلْتَ! وَأَيْضًا‬:ُ‫ َهلْ َأنْتَ الْمَسِيحُ ا ْبنُ الِ؟» قَالَ لَهُ َيسُوع‬:‫تَقُولَ لَــنَا‬
64

‫علَى‬
َ ‫ وَآتِيًا‬،ِ‫عنْ يَمِينِ الْقُوّة‬
َ ‫ ِمنَ النَ ُتبْصِرُونَ ا ْبنَ الِنْسَانِ جَالِسًا‬:ْ‫َأقُولُ لَــ ُكم‬
ُ‫ وَآخَرُونَ لَطَمُوه‬،ُ‫ حِي َن ِئذٍ َبصَقُوا فِي وَجْهِهِ وَلَكَمُوه‬... .»ِ‫سَحَاب السّمَاء‬
67

َ‫ فَ َوقَفَ َيسُوعُ أَمَام‬: ... .»‫ َمنْ ضَ َربَكَ؟‬،ُ‫« َت َنبّأْ لَــنَا َأيّهَا الْمَسِيح‬:َ‫قَا ِئلِين‬
11 28 68

َ‫«َأنْت‬:ُ‫«أََأنْتَ مَلِكُ الْيَهُودِ؟» فَقَالَ لَهُ َيسُوع‬:ً‫ فَسَأَلَهُ الْوَالِــي قِائِل‬.‫الْوَالِي‬

.»ُ‫تَقُول‬
The American Bible Society’s new translation, The Contemporary English Version, helpfully footnotes
the High Priest’s question (Mt 26:63 || Mk 14:61 || Lk 22:70) with the following explanation: “Son of
God : One of the titles used for the kings of Israel.” But this meaning is clear anyway from the context,
because the priests go on to interpret Jesus’ acceptance of the “Son of God” title and His use of the
“Son of Man” title to mean “that he himself is Christ a king” (Lk 23:2). Pilate understands it to mean
“King of the Jews” (Lk 23:3 || Mk 15:2 || Mt 27:11 || Jn 18:33). The Jewish leaders, of course, were
looking for any reason at all to condemn Jesus, but his use of the “Son of Man” title seemed to outrage
them more than his acceptance of the “Son of God” title. As Benoit notes, “Son of Man” is a higher title
than “Son of God,” and its use attributes to Jesus a unique, supernatural, pre-existent origin
(1962:80,84,91). Scholars are widely agreed that “Son of Man” is a higher title than “Son of God,”
and that its use by Jesus outraged the priests even more.12 This is clear anyway from the use of the
Greek particle plên at the beginning of the Jesus’ confession; it means “more than that.”

for it is only as Jesus is designated the Son of God that he can become the King of Israel in this Messianic
sense” (Newman and Nida 1980:50).
12
“There can be no doubt, however, that all three evangelists make Jesus’ claim to be the Son of Man the basis
for the high priest’s/Sanhedrin’s charge of blasphemy” Caragounis 1986:141.
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 10

It is widely accepted that Peter’s important confession of who Jesus is in Matthew 16:16 (“You are
the Christ, the Son of the Living God”), like Nathaniel’s in John 1:49, merely employs two titles for the
same messianic position, and that Peter’s use of “Son of God” is the normal Jewish usage meaning the
Messianic King and not an ascription of divinity.13 This is clearly how Luke and Mark understood
Peter’s confession. Luke (9:20) shortens the confession to “The Christ of God,” omitting the word
“son” as superfluous, and Mark (8:29) retains only “You are the Christ,” omitting the appositional
phrase, “the Son of the Living God.” If Luke and Mark had thought that the title “Son of God” carried
some new revelation not already present in the title “Christ/Messiah,” they would hardly have omitted it
to save space.
.»!ِ‫«مَسِيحُ ال‬:َ‫ َمنْ تَقُولُونَ أَنّي أَنَا؟» فَأَجَابَ ُبطْرُسُ وَقَال‬،ْ‫«وَأَ ْنُتم‬:ْ‫فَقَالَ لَ ُهم‬20 :9 ‫لو‬
َ‫«أَ ْنت‬:ُ‫ َمنْ تَقُولُونَ إِنّي أَنَا؟» فَأَجَابَ ُبطْرُسُ وَقَالَ لَه‬،ْ‫«وَأَ ْنُتم‬:ْ‫فَقَالَ لَ ُهم‬29 :8 ‫مر‬
»!ُ‫الْمَسِيح‬
So it is evident that “Christ” and “Son of God” were used as fairly equivalent titles, and that Jesus
avoided them14 because of their nationalistic connotations, preferring the universal heavenly savior title,
“The Son of Man” and the shorter form, “the Son.”
َ‫ «خَلّص‬:‫وَكَذلِكَ رُؤَسَاءُ الْكَهَنَةِ َأيْضًا وَهُمْ َيسْتَهْزِئُونَ مَعَ الْ َك َتبَةِ وَالشّيُوخِ قَالُوا‬
42 41
27 ‫مت‬
ِ‫آخَرِينَ وَأَمّا نَفْسُهُ فَمَا يَ ْقدِرُ َأنْ يُخَلّصَهَا! ِإنْ كَانَ هُوَ مَلِكَ إِسْرَائِيلَ فَلْ َينْ ِزل‬
ُ‫ فَ ْلُينْ ِقذْهُ النَ ِإنْ أَرَادَهُ! لَنّه‬،ِ‫علَى ال‬ َ َ‫عنِ الصّلِيب فَنُؤْ ِمنَ بِهِ! َقدِ اتّ َكل‬
43
َ َ‫الن‬
.»!ِ‫ أَنَا ا ْبنُ ال‬:َ‫قَال‬
َ‫خلّص‬َ « :‫ قَالُوا‬،ِ‫ستَهْ ِزئُونَ فِيمَا َبيْنَ ُهمْ مَعَ الْ َكتَبَة‬
ْ ُ‫وَكَذلِكَ رُؤَسَاءُ الْكَ َهنَةِ وَ ُهمْ م‬ 31
15 ‫مر‬
َ ‫آخَرِينَ وَأَمّا نَفْسُهُ فَمَا يَ ْقدِرُ َأنْ يُخَلّصَهَا! لِ َينْ ِزلِ النَ الْمَسِيحُ مَلِكُ إِسْرَائِي‬
‫ل‬ 32

.ِ‫صلِبَا مَعَهُ كَانَا يُ َعيّرَانِه‬

ُ ِ‫ وَالّلذَان‬.»!َ‫ لِنَرَى وَنُؤْ ِمن‬،ِ‫عنِ الصّلِيب‬ َ
َ‫خلّص‬ َ «:َ‫ وَالرّؤَسَاءُ َأيْضًا مَعَهُمْ َيسْخَرُونَ بِهِ قَائِلِين‬،َ‫وَكَانَ الشّعْبُ وَاقِفِينَ َينْظُرُون‬ 35
23 ‫لو‬
‫ج ْندُ أَيْضًا‬
ُ ْ‫ وَال‬.»!ِ‫ فَ ْليُخَلّصْ نَفْسَهُ ِإنْ كَانَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحَ مُخْتَارَ ال‬،َ‫آخَرِين‬
36

ِ‫«ِإنْ ُكنْتَ َأنْتَ َملِكَ ا ْليَهُود‬:َ‫ قَا ِئلِين‬،ُ‫ستَهْزَأُوا بِهِ وَ ُهمْ يَ ْأتُونَ َويُ َقدّمُونَ لَهُ خَل‬
37
ْ‫ا‬
.»!َ‫فَخَلّصْ نَفْسَك‬
After Jesus’ ascension from this world and enthronement in heaven, there was no longer a danger
that the nationalists would misunderstand his messiahship in a restorative way and start a revolution in
support of him. The nature of Jesus’ kingship was now clearly understood to be “not of this world,” and
so there was no longer a need to conceal his identity as the King Messiah. In fact, the resurrection itself
was the sign by which Jesus was publicly “designated Son of God ... Christ our Lord” (Rom 1:4). His
apostles were no longer bound by His commandment in that they “tell no one that he was the Christ”
(Matthew 16:20 ). In fact, their task was now to proclaim to everyone the Kingdom of God in Jesus the
Christ. They did so now without avoiding the royal Messianic titles “Christ” and “Son of God,” which
they used interchangeably:
And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, “He is the Son of God” .... proving that
Jesus was the Christ. (Acts 9:20, 22)
13
The conservative scholar Benoit (1962:70), in his article defending the divinity of Christ, notes that Peter’s
confession at Caesarea was not meant to imply divinity, but that the Apostles did eventually “ascend to faith in
the divinity of the Master.”
14
Jesus made subtle use of “son” in the parable of the wicked tenants, where the landlord sends his “beloved
son” to collect the rent (Mt 21: 37 || Mk 12:6 || Lk 20:13). In John, He uses “Son of God” in 5:25, 10:36, and
perhaps 3:16. He subtly calls Himself “Christ” in Matthew 23:10, Mark 9:41, Luke 24:26, 46 and John 17:3.
Of course, He accepts these titles from others, as at John 4:26.
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 11

.»ِ‫وَلِلْ َوقْتِ جَعَلَ َيكْرِزُ فِي الْمَجَامِعِ ]بِالْمَسِيحِ[ <بيسوع> «َأنْ هذَا هُوَ ا ْبنُ ال‬ 20
20 :9 ‫أع‬
‫«أَلَ ْيسَ هذَا هُوَ الّذِي أَهْلَكَ فِي‬:‫َفبُهِتَ جَمِيعُ اّلذِينَ كَانُوا َيسْمَعُونَ وَقَالُوا‬ 21

‫أُورُشَلِيمَ الّذِينَ َي ْدعُونَ بِهذَا السْمِ؟ وَقَدْ جَاءَ إِلَى ُهنَا لِهذاَ ِليَسُوقَهُمْ مُوثَقِينَ إِلَى‬
‫حيّرُ ا ْليَهُودَ السّاكِنِينَ فِي‬ َ ُ‫ وَي‬،ً‫ وَأَمّا شَا ُولُ فَكَانَ يَ ْزدَادُ قُوّة‬.»!ِ‫رُؤَسَاءِ الْكَ َهنَة‬
22

.»ُ‫دِمَشْقَ مُحَقّقًا «َأنّ هذَا هُوَ الْمَسِيح‬

... the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel, ... but it came through a revelation of Jesus
Christ. ... [God] was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles,
(Galatians 1:11-16)
Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.... Who is it that overcomes the world but
he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:1,5; see also John 20:31, 11:27)

،َ‫ مَنْ ُهوَ الّذِي يَ ْغلِبُ ا ْلعَالَم‬... .ِ‫ كُلّ مَنْ ُي ْؤمِنُ أَنّ يَسُوعَ ُهوَ الْمَسِيحُ فَقَدْ ُولِدَ مِنَ ال‬5 ‫يو‬1
5 1

‫إِلّ الّذِي ُي ْؤمِنُ أَنّ يَسُوعَ ُهوَ ا ْبنُ الِ؟‬

Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:9) And because you are
sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:6)
the kingdom of his beloved Son, (Colossians 1:13)
the kingdom of Christ and of God (Ephesians 5:5)
the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ (Rev 12:10; also Rev 11:15)
More often, however, they proclaimed Jesus simply as “Lord,” which replaced the “Son of Man” title,
probably because the latter was unknown to the Gentiles. This is seen in Acts 10:36, where Jesus as
the Christ, Lord of all.
َ‫ هذَا هُو‬.ِ‫لمِ ِب َيسُوعَ الْمَسِيح‬
َ ّ‫الْكَلِمَةُ الّتِي أَرْسَلَهَا إِلَى َبنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ ُيبَشّرُ بِالس‬36 :10 ‫أع‬
.ّ‫رَبّ الْ ُكل‬
Paul uses “Son of God” terminology for Christ only 12 times and “the Son” only once, but he uses
“Lord” and “Christ” hundreds of times. It might be noted, however, that where Paul uses “Son,” the
focus is on the close loving relationship, as in Romans 8:32 (“did not spare His own Son”) and
Colossians 1:13 (“kingdom of His beloved Son”). Paul’s speech in Acts 20:28 mentions “with the blood
of His own,” and the word “Son” is usually understood to be implied by “own.”
The usage in Romans 8:3 (“sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh”) implies the
incarnation of the Word of God, and the same might be intended in John 3:16 (“that He gave His Son”)
and in Romans 8:32 above.
In systematic theology, the divine nature of Christ as a person in the Trinity has come to be called
“God the Son.” So it is not surprising that when modern Christian readers see “Son of God” mentioned
in the Bible with regard to Jesus, many of them misunderstand the phrase to mean “God the Son.” They
think the phrase asserts His divinity rather than His Messianic authority. The Bible affirms the divinity
of Christ, as discussed further below, but not by simply calling Him “the Son of God.” There is no
verse in the Bible where “the Son of God” is used with a clear intent to ascribe divinity to Jesus beyond
that suggested by other Messianic titles. So in coming to the question of how to explain the title “Son of
God” in the Bible, it is important not to confuse the usual Biblical usage with theological usage.
Since “son” is a relational term, it was a convenient metaphor for describing one’s obedient
relationship with a loving God:
Galatians 4.6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba!
Father!”
Romans 8.29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in
order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 12

But this terminology does not evoke warm feelings among Muslims who abhor the use of kinship
terminology with regard to God. Nor does it accurately communicate to them that Jesus is the “Christ
... Lord of all” (Acts 10:37). Translators of the Bible in Muslim contexts have therefore sought to be
faithful to the original meaning by translating the title “Son of God” in ways that avoid communicating
the wrong meaning. They have tried a number of expressions, including “Spiritual Son of God,” “One
like a Son to God,” and “Son from God,” but these are still misunderstood and abhored by most
Muslims, and they do not really communicate the intended meaning. The expressions “Beloved of God”
and “Companion (walî) of God” are more acceptable and communicate a relationship, but they are not
unique to Christ and do not communicate kingly authority.
A unique and accurate expression is simply “God’s Messiah.” This has been used in some versions
of the Jesus film. To be communicative, however, the title “Messiah” needs to be explained, since
Muslims do not generally know its meaning. Both “Messiah” and “Son of God” can be explained as
titles for the righteous king sent from God to save and rule his people forever and judge the nations.
(See Acts 3:11; 4:26; Luke 9:18; 23:34; Rev 11:15; 12:7.) The Kitab Allah explains the meaning of
“Messiah” in several footnotes, and then it footnotes every occurrence of “Son of God” with an
explanation relating it to “God’s Messiah.” Where the intimate relationship is intended, a phrase that
has been used is “God’s Messiah, Whom He loves with the love of the father for the son.” In this case,
the added clause leaves open the interpretation that God IS the father and the Messiah IS the son,
without applying these biological terms explicitly, but focussing instead on the relationship. Where the
preexistence of Christ is implied, as in Romans 8:3, then the phrase “Word of God” is quite appropriate
for the audience, since God’s Word originates in God Himself and is not independent of Him.

Note on the Divinity of Jesus

The Messianic titles “Son of Man” and “Son of God” are used nowhere in the Bible to describe the
humanity and deity of Jesus, respectively. Scholars agree, in fact, that “Son of Man” is the more
exalted title. But to say that the title “Son of God” is equivalent to “the Christ” is not to belittle it. The
title “Christ” itself, although treated in current Christian usage as a mere name, is an exalted title. The
Jews expected the Messiah King to have a supernatural origin (Micah 5:2; John 7:27), only being like a
human (Dan 7:13; Rev 1:12). They also expected the Messiah to perform the acts of God on His
behalf. Zechariah seems to switch between statements about a human coming to Jerusalem as the savior
King (9:9) and God coming to Jerusalem as the savior King (14:9). Kreitzer (1987:90), after examining
in detail two pre-Christian Jewish “documents which speak explicitly of a Messiah,” concludes that
the functional overlap between the messianic agent and God is so complete that it tends to slide into an
identification between God and his agent in which the boundaries separating them are breached. This is
accomplished in spite of the fact that both documents contain monotheistic sections exalting the
transcendent nature of God alone.
But the full divinity of Jesus is revealed in the Scriptures, not by any title used, but by the things
said about him. This may be seen in the divine attributes that Jesus ascribed to Himself, which were
listed above in the Son of Man discussion. Gruenler points out that the nineteen “Son of Man” sayings
in Mark portray Jesus “sharing the prerogatives of God ... as a glorified divine being” (1984:1035).
Payne (1981) shows that twenty of the narrative parables of Jesus portray Him in roles, real and
metaphorical, attributed to God in the Old Testament. Witherington (1990) and others have seen divine
authority represented in Jesus’ frequent use of “truly (amên) I say to you” to introduce new teachings.
Unlike a prophet, Jesus never says “thus says the Lord” but speaks with His own authority.
Nevertheless the disciples did not recognize the divinity of Christ before His resurrection, although
they asked themselves, “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?” But after the
resurrection, Thomas says to the risen Christ, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). 15 The Apostle John
15
Although Pharoah and Caesar are said to have been addressed in similar ways, pious Jews would not have
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 13

receives the revelation he records in the prologue to his Gospel (John 1:1-18); there he declares that
Jesus is the divine Word of God incarnate (Jn 1:1,14), who reveals God to mankind (18). (The early
church fathers, when speaking of the divine nature of Christ, often called Him “the Word” (Logos),
although the Greek churchmen of later years preferred “God the Son.”)
The Word of God concept was well developed and frequently mentioned in the Aramaic targums,
which were read or recited in every synagogue service. In these the Word of God appears as the
personalized projection of God through whom the world was created, through whom God’s
communications and activities on earth are performed, and through whom God reveals Himself. It was
never anticipated, however, that the Messiah would be an incarnation of the Word of God. But the New
Testament authors describe Christ as revealer, creator, and sustainer, although they use a variety of
phrases to characterize what they are talking about. The main passages are the following:
John 1:1-5: “the Word of God” through Whom “all things were made.”
Colossians 1:15-19: “the image of God” through whom “all things were created” and “hold
together” in whom “all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell.”
1 Corinthians 8:6: “one Lord ... through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
2 Corinthians 4:4-6 “the likeness of God” and “the glory of God in the face of Christ”
Hebrews 1:2-3 (“the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being” ... “through
whom he made the universe” NIV).
Paul wrote a hymn affirming that Christ is in nature God and equal to God but took on the nature
and appearance of a man (Phil 2:6-8), and he affirms that in Christ “the fullness of Deity dwells” (Col
2:9). John also wrote that “the Word is God” (John 1:1), and other passages in John make the same
point, saying that in Him we see and hear the Father.
It can be observed that the divinity of Christ is revealed in the Scriptures with some subtlety. It is
demonstrated in the Gospels, but explicit teaching is found primarily in the Epistles, which are
addressed to people who are already believers in Christ. These people have the benefit of the Holy
Spirit to enlighten their understanding. The evangelistic preaching in Acts, on the other hand, makes no
attempt to explain the divinity of Christ to prebelievers. In fact, it is clearly stated that prebelievers are
unable to understand these things because they lack the Holy Spirit:
I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he
will guide you into all the truth; (John 16:12-13)
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1
Corinthians 2:14 NIV)
The implication is that once people have come to faith in Jesus as the Christ their Lord and Savior, they
begin to grow in understanding as the Holy Spirit enlightens their minds.
The Scriptures warn us not to put stumbling blocks in the way of others (Lk 17:2 Rom 14:13). But
people do this when they insist that Muslim seekers must accept the divinity of Christ and the trinity
before they can be saved. It took 300 years for the church to work out the Trinity, so someone who is
not yet born again is hardly going to do it. When Muslims want to debate the divinity of Christ, they
can be challenged to read the Gospels and answer the question, “Is Jesus merely a human? And if not,
then Who is He?” That can open their minds to the mystery of Christ, in spite of the statement in the
Qur’an that God is not Jesus.16 But one should not allow debates about the nature of Christ to

addressed them this way, and the words of Thomas are clearly a confession of faith, rather than a polite address
to the sovereign.
16
Technically, Christians would not say that God is Jesus, but rather that Jesus is God, meaning that the Word
of God is part of God but not the totality. This misunderstanding of the incarnation leads Muslims to ask, “If
God was incarnate as Jesus, then who was running the universe and listening to prayers while He was on
earth?” The answer, of course, is that God the Father still filled the universe and still ran things. Isaiah 40:10
describes the Good News, saying “Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might, and his arm rules for him.” The
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 14

sidetrack the challenge to accept Him as Lord Messiah, as the One who cleanses and strengthens His
followers and gives them eternal life in the Kingdom of God. The testimony of many believers is that
once they had accepted Christ and received the Holy Spirit, they began to grow in understanding of His
divine nature.

The Title “the Son”

In the Old Testament, the terms “the son” and “a son” were used for the king chosen by God to govern
His people. In the Gospels, however, “the Son” occurs in contexts where the changes of reference are
frequent, which would have made it awkward to use the longer title “Son of Man”:
All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no
one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew
11:27 || Luke 10:22)
But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the
Father. (Mark 13:32 || Matthew 24:36)
Since Jesus is never quoted as calling Himself “the Son of God” in the Synoptic Gospels and only
rarely in John, it would seem likely that when He calls Himself “the Son,” this a shortened form of “the
Son of Man.” If the Jews had identified “the Son” with the Messianic title “Son of God” instead of the
more nebulous title “Son of Man,” they would not have had to ask Him, “How long will you keep us in
suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10:24).
The shortened title “the Son” is much more common in the Gospel and Epistles of John than
elsewhere. Mollat (1962:145) says that the sense of “Son” in John seems to range from Messiah to Son
of Man. This alternation may be seen in John chapter three. After quoting Jesus’ statement that the Son
of Man descended from heaven (3:13f), John comments that “God ... gave his Son” (3:16) and “God
sent the Son into the world” (3:17). A similar alternation is seen in the words of Jesus recorded in John
5:25-27, which is one of the few passages in which Jesus calls himself “Son of God”:
Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son
of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son
also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of
man. (John 5:25-27)
But as Jesus continues the discourse in chapter five (vv. 30-47), He quits using “sonship” terminology
altogether and just uses first-person pronouns. Perhaps He deemed it less shocking to His listeners if He
used third-person references to introduce descriptions of His role and then shifted to first-person
references afterwards.
When Jesus wanted to explain the intimacy of His relationship to the Father, He dropped the use of
kinship terms and used first-person pronouns:
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And
he who sees me sees him who sent me. (John 12:44-45)
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I
been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father;
how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in
me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me
does his works. (John 14:8-10)
Unlike the other apostles, John in his epistles does not use “the Lord” at all, using “the Son” instead.
He also uses “the Messiah/Christ.” That these are equivalent is clear from the parallelism in passages

Messiah is like the arm of God. One could liken the incarnation to an unseen puppeteer, who inserts his arm
into a hand puppet so that he can tell other puppets about himself and also set an example for them to follow.
In some ways the puppet is distinct from the puppeteer, but actually he is the puppeteer, although not all of
him; he is certainly not someone else besides the puppeteer.
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 15

such as 2 John 1:9 below:

Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides
in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. (2 John 9)
In the Gospels, the phrase “the Son” can be explained as a short form of “Son of Man,” meaning
“Lord of mankind.” After the resurrection, when the Messiahship of Jesus could be openly proclaimed,
“the Son” meant the same as “the Messiah” and “the Lord.”

The Title “Lord”

Jesus defined his messiahship in the universalist terms associated with “the Son of Man.” His disciples
came to understand that He is “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36) and not just “King of the Jews.” Jesus
Himself accepted and affirmed the title “Lord” (Mt 7:21-22, 12:8; 21:3; 24:42: 25:11, 37, 44; John
13:13-14), and it replaced “Son of Man” as his most popular and exalted title:
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9-11)
Roman citizens, however, were required to confess that Caesar is Lord, meaning the highest authority
on earth, and this conflict resulted in numerous persecutions in the first centuries. (Similarly conflicts
over Jesus’ role focused on his title “king,” as recorded in John 19:12,15; Acts 17:7.)
Confusion arises, however, from the fact that a form of the word for “lord” was also used as a
substitute for the name of God. The Pharisees and Rabbis thought that the way to avoid breaking the
Law was to build “a fence” around it. For example, to help people avoid taking God’s name in vain,
they made it a rule that one could not say God’s name at all, and so they outlawed all mention of
“Yahweh.” Instead they said adônai, which literally means “my lords.” Then when they translated the
Old Testament into Greek, they chose the Greek word kyrios “lord” and treated it as a name for God.
But in the Messianic reference in Psalm 110.1 (109 in the Greek), they used the similar form ho kyrios
mou “my lord,” resulting in the peculiar construction that is imitated in most English translations: “The
LORD says to my lord.” In the Aramaic of Jesus and the early church, the equivalent Messianic title
was marana “our lord” (as mentioned in 1 Cor 16:22). In the Aramaic/Syriac scriptures, the name of
God was represented either as in Hebrew or as marya “the lord.” In the Greek New Testament, the
distinction is like that in the Greek Old Testament, depending in part by the presence of the article ho.
In modern English translations of the Old Testament, the distinction is rendered in print only, using all
capitals for “LORD” when it translates Yahweh. The ancient Hebrew version of Matthew carefully used
YHWH in references to God (the Father) and adôni (‘my lord/master) or ha-adôn (‘the lord/master) in
references to Christ, just as in Psalm 110:1.
In ancient Arabic translations, God’s Hebrew name Yahweh was translated using his Arabic name
Allah, but most modern Arabic translations have used ar rabb. The term rabb means “highest
caretaker/ upbringer,” and it is usually found in possessed constructions, such as rabbu l-bayt “head of
the household,” rabbu l-‘â’ila “head of the family, patriarch,” and rabbunâ “our caretaker, our Lord.”
This latter construction is quite common and is appropriate as a title for the Father; in the form yâ rabb
it is frequently used to address God in prayer. Unfortunately, the modern Arabic translations have used
the rare form ar rabb, not only for the Father, but also as a title for the Messiah. As a result, when
Muslims see ar rabb in the New Testament, they assume it refers to God (the Father). When they read
that people “preached in the name of the Lord” (Acts 9:29; 14:3) or “believed in the Lord” (Acts 11:21;
18:8), they assume it means people believed in God, which they as Muslims already do. They do not
hear in these verses the call to believe in Christ. Then when they read ar rabb clearly used of Christ,
they react negatively as if He were being called “the Father.”
In the Elegant Gospels, the name of God is translated as Allah or ar rabb or rabbi or rabbuna, and
 Explaining “Son of God” and Other Messianic Titles 16

the title “Lord” is translated as as sayyid or sayyiduna or mawlânâ “our Lord.”17 This policy has also
been followed in some recent versions of the Jesus film and in Kitab Allah. So when Muslims ask why
Jesus is called ar rabb, it can be explained that it means mawlânâ “our Lord” or sayyidu l-kull “Lord
of all”, and that this is the meaning of the title “Messiah” as well.

Conclusion
There is a great deal of confusion about the Messianic titles, even among Christians. They often
misinterpret the titles to be statements of genealogy and metaphysics rather than titles defining
particular roles. “Son of God” becomes a statement of deity, and “Son of Man” becomes a statement
of humanity, whereas the original intent was that “Son of Man” and “Lord” should describe Jesus’
authority over all mankind, while “Son of God” and “Messiah” meant He was the eternal king over the
people of God’s kingdom. Among Muslims, however, these titles are not only confusing but sometimes
repulsive, leading many of them to reject the Word of God before they have had a chance to consider its
message. It is hoped that this brief summary of the issues will promote understanding of the titles and
enable believers to explain them to those who ask about them. In many cases, serious objections to
reading the Bible or considering Christ melt away when these terms are correctly explained.

References
Benoit, P., O.P. 1962. The Divinity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels. In: Gelin 1962:59-94.
Caragounis, Chrys C. 1986. The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 38. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
de Kuiper, Arie D. and Newman, Barclay M., Jr. 1977. Jesus, Son of God -- a Translation Problem. The
Bible Translator 28(4):432-438.
Gelin, A. (ed). 1962. Son and Saviour; the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures. London: Geoffrey
Chapman. (Translated from French)
Gruenler, R. G. 1984. Son of Man. In: Elwell, Walter (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House. pp. 1034-36.
Hoffmeier, James K. 1997. Son of God: from Pharaoh to Israel’s Kings to Jesus. Bible Review 13(3):44-49.
Howard, George (Ed). The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
Klausner, Joseph. 1955 (Hebrew 1927). The Messianic Idea in Israel; from its Beginning to the Completion
of the Mishnah. 3rd edition. New York: The MacMillan Company.
Kreitzer, L. Joseph. 1987. Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 19. Sheffield.
Mollat, S. J. 1962. The Divinity of Christ in Saint John. In: Gelin 1962: 125-155.
Newman, Barclay M. 1970. Towards a Translation of "The Son of Man" in the Gospels. The Bible Translator
21(3):141-146.
Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene Nida. 1980. A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John. Stuttgart:
United Bible Societies.
Newman, Barclay M., and Philip C. Stine. 1988. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. New York: United
Bible Societies.
Payne, Philip B. 1981. Jesus’ implicit claim to deity in his parables. Trinity Journal 2:3-23
Vermes, Geza. 1997. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press.
Witherington, Ben, III. 1990. The Christology of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

17
In some narrated sections of Luke, the Elegant Gospels have ‘îsâ “Jesus” instead of “the Lord,” following the
pattern in Mark and Matthew. This evidently facilitated a more natural style in some contexts.