King Solomon. (Song of Sol. 6:11, 12) Either seen there by the king himself or noticed by someone else and then recommended to him, the Shulammite was brought to Solomon’s camp. King Solomon made known his admiration for her. But she felt no attraction for him and voiced a longing for her shepherd lover. (1:2-4, 7) The “daughters of Jerusalem” therefore recommended that she leave the camp and find her lover. (1:8) Solomon, however, was unwilling to let her go and began praising her beauty, promising to fashion circlets of gold and studs of silver for her. (1:9-11) The Shulammite then informed the king that the object of her love was someone else.—1:12-14.

Thereafter the Shulammite’s shepherd lover came to Solomon’s camp and voiced his affection for her. She, too, assured him of her love. (Song of Sol. 1:15–2:2) When speaking to the “daughters of Jerusalem,” the Shulammite compared her lover to a fruit tree among the trees of the forest and solemnly charged them by what was beautiful and graceful not to try to arouse unwanted love in her. (2:3-7) Always, even during the night hours, she continued to long for her shepherd lover, and she reminded the “daughters of Jerusalem” that they were under oath not to attempt to awaken love in her until it felt inclined.—2:16–3:5.

Returning to Jerusalem, Solomon took the Shulammite along. Seeing the procession approaching the city, several “daughters of Zion” commented about the appearance of the cortege. (Song of Sol. 3:6-11) At Jerusalem, the shepherd lover, having followed the procession, got in touch with the Shulammite and praised her beauty, thereby assuring her of his love. (4:1-5) The Shulammite voiced her desire to leave the city (4:6), and he continued expressing his admiration for her. (4:7-16a) “Let my dear one come into his garden and eat its choicest fruits,” she said. (4:16b) His response to this invitation was: “I have come into my garden, O my sister, my bride.” (5:1a) Women of Jerusalem encouraged them, saying: “Eat, O companions! Drink and become drunk with expressions of endearment!”—5:1b.

When the Shulammite, after having a bad dream, related it to the “daughters of Jerusalem” and told them that she was lovesick (Song of Sol. 5:2-8), they wanted to know what was so special about her dear one. At that the Shulammite proceeded to describe her lover in glowing terms. (5:10-16) Asked by them where he was, she informed them that he was shepherding among the gardens. (6:1-3) Once again Solomon confronted the Shulammite with expressions of praise. (6:4-10) Told that she had not sought his company (6:11, 12), Solomon appealed to her to come back. (6:13a) This prompted her to ask: “What do you people behold in the Shulammite?” (6:13b) Solomon used this as an opening to express further admiration for her. (7:1-9) But the Shulammite remained changeless in her love and called upon the “daughters of Jerusalem” not to awaken love in her when it did not feel inclined to come forth spontaneously.—7:10–8:4.

Apparently Solomon then allowed the Shulammite to return to her home. Seeing her approaching, her brothers asked: “Who is this woman coming up from the wilderness, leaning upon her dear one?” (Song of Sol. 8:5a) The brothers of the Shulammite had not realized that their sister had such constancy in love. In earlier years one brother had said concerning her: “We have a little sister that does not have any breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day that she will be spoken for?” (8:8) Another brother replied: “If she should be a wall, we shall build upon her a battlement of silver; but if she should be a door, we shall block her up with a cedar plank.” (8:9) However, since the Shulammite had successfully resisted all enticements, being satisfied with her own vineyard and remaining loyal in her affection for her lover (8:6, 7, 11, 12), she could properly say: “I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers. In this case I have become in his eyes like her that is finding peace.”—8:10.

The song concludes with the desire expressed by her shepherd lover to hear her voice (Song of Sol. 8:13) and she desired that he come leaping, crossing the mountains that separated them.—8:14.

VALUE

The Song of Solomon illustrates the beauty of enduring and constant love. Such unswerving love is reflected in the relationship of Christ Jesus and his bride. (Eph. 5:25-32) Thus The Song of Solomon can serve to encourage those professing to be of Christ’s bride to remain faithful to their heavenly bridegroom.—Compare 2 Corinthians 11:2.

See the book “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial,” pp. 115-117.

SON(S) OF GOD

The expression “Son of God” primarily identifies Christ Jesus. Consideration here is given initially to others also called “sons of God.”

“SONS OF THE TRUE GOD”

The first mention of “sons of the true God” is at Genesis 6:2-4. There such sons are spoken of as ‘beginning to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose,’ this prior to the global flood.

Many commentators hold that these ‘sons of God’ were themselves human, being in reality men of the line of Seth. They base their argument on the fact that Seth’s line was that through which godly Noah came, whereas the other lines from Adam, that of Cain and those of any other sons born to Adam (Gen. 5:3, 4), were destroyed at the Flood. So, they say that the taking as wives “the daughters of men” by the “sons of the true God” means that Sethites began to marry into the line of wicked Cain.

There is, however, nothing to show that God made any such distinction between family lines at this point. Corroborating Scriptural evidence is lacking to support the view that intermarriage between the lines of Seth and Cain is what is here meant, or that such marriages were responsible for the birth of “mighty ones” as mentioned in verse four. It is true that the expression “sons of men [or “of mankind”]” (which those favoring the earlier mentioned view would contrast with the expression ‘sons of God’) is frequently used in an unfavorable sense, but this is not consistently so.—Compare Psalm 4:2; 57:4; Proverbs 8:22, 30, 31; Jeremiah 32:18, 19; Daniel 10:16.

Angelic sons of God

On the other hand, there is an explanation that finds corroborating evidence in the Scriptures. The expression “sons of the true God” next occurs at Job 1:6 and here the reference is obviously to spirit sons of God, assembled in God’s presence, among whom Satan, who had been “roving about in the earth,” also appeared. (Job 1:7; see also 2:1, 2.) Again at Job 38:4-7 the “sons of God” who ‘shouted in applause’ when God ‘laid the cornerstone’ of the earth clearly were angelic sons and not humans descended from Adam (as yet not even created). So, too, at Psalm 89:6 the “sons of God” are definitely heavenly creatures, not earthlings.

The identification of the “sons of the true God” at Genesis 6:2-4 with angelic creatures is objected to by those holding the previously mentioned view because they say the context relates entirely to human wickedness. This objection is not valid, however, since the wrongful interjection of spirit creatures in human affairs most certainly could contribute to or accelerate the growth of human wickedness. Wicked spirit creatures in Jesus’ time on earth, though not then materializing in visible form, were responsible for wrong human conduct of an extreme nature. (See DEMON; DEMON POSSESSION.) The mention of a mixing into human affairs by angelic sons of God could reasonably appear in the Genesis account precisely because of its explaining to a considerable degree the gravity of the situation that had developed on earth prior to the Flood.

Supporting this are the apostle Peter’s references to “the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days” (1 Pet. 3:19, 20), and to the “angels that sinned” mentioned in connection with the “ancient world” of Noah’s time (2 Pet. 2:4, 5), as well as Jude’s statement concerning “the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place.” (Jude 6) If it is denied that the “sons of the true God” of Genesis 6:2-4 were spirit creatures, then these statements by the Christian writers become enigmatic, with nothing to explain the manner in which this angelic disobedience took place, or its actual relation to Noah’s time.

Angels definitely did materialize human bodies on occasion, even eating and drinking with men. (Gen. 18:1-22; 19:1-3) Jesus’ statement concerning resurrected men and women not marrying or being given in marriage but being like the “angels in heaven” shows that marriages between such heavenly creatures do not exist, no male and female principle being indicated among them. (Matt. 22:30) But this does not say that such angelic creatures could not materialize human forms and enter marriage relations with human women. It should be noted that Jude’s reference to angels as not keeping their original position and forsaking their “proper dwelling place” (certainly here referring to an abandoning of the spirit realm) is immediately followed by the statement: “So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example.” (Jude 6, 7) Thus, the combined weight of the Scriptural evidence points to angelic deviation, the performance of acts contrary to their spirit nature, occurring in the days of Noah. There seems to be no valid reason, then, for doubting that the ‘sons of God’ of Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic sons.—See ELOHIM (Angels); NEPHILIM.

FIRST HUMAN SON AND HIS DESCENDANTS

Adam was the first human “son of God” by virtue of his creation by God. (Gen. 2:7; Luke 3:38) Since he was evicted from God’s sanctuary in Eden, and condemned to death as a willful sinner, he was, in effect, disowned by God and lost his filial relationship with his heavenly Father.—Gen. 3:17-24.

Those descended from him have been born with inherited sinful tendencies. (See SIN, I.) Since they were born of one rejected by God, Adam’s descendants could not claim the relationship of being a son of God simply on the basis of birth. This is demonstrated by the apostle John’s words at John 1:12, 13. He shows that those who received Christ Jesus, exercising faith in his name, were given “authority to become God’s children, . . . [being] born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God.” Sonship in relation to God, therefore, is not viewed as something automatically received by all Adam’s descendants at birth. This and other texts show that, since Adam’s fall into sin, it has required some special recognition by God for men to be designated as his “sons.” This is illustrated in his dealings with Israel.

“ISRAEL IS MY SON”

To Pharaoh, who considered himself a god and a son of the Egyptian god Ra, Jehovah spoke of Israel as “my son, my first-born,” and called on the Egyptian ruler to “send my son away that he may serve me.” (Ex. 4:22, 23) Thus the entire nation of Israel was viewed by God as his “son” due to being his chosen people, a “special property, out of all the peoples.” (Deut. 14:1, 2) Not only because Jehovah is the Source of all life, but more specifically because God had, in harmony with the Abrahamic covenant, produced this people, he is called their “Creator,” their “Former,” and their “Father,” by whose name they were called. (Compare Psalm 95:6, 7; 100:3; Isaiah 43:1-7, 15; 45:11, 12, 18, 19; 63:16.) He had ‘helped them even from the belly,’ evidently referring to the very beginning of their development as a people, and he ‘formed’ them by his dealings with them and by the Law covenant, giving shape to the national characteristics and structure. (Isa. 44:1, 2, 21; compare God’s expressions to Jerusalem at Ezekiel 16:1-14; also Paul’s expressions at Galatians 4:19 and 1 Thessalonians 2:11, 12.) Jehovah protected, carried, corrected and provided for them as a father would for his son. (Deut. 1:30, 31; 8:5-9; compare Isaiah 49:14, 15.) As a “son” the nation should have served to the praise of their Father. (Isa. 43:21; Mal. 1:6) Otherwise they would belie their sonship (Deut. 32:4-6, 18-20; Isa. 1:2, 3; 30:1, 2, 9), even as some of them acted in disreputable ways and were called ‘sons of Belial’ (literal Hebrew expression rendered “good-for-nothing men” at Deuteronomy 13:13 [NW] and other texts; compare 2 Corinthians 6:15). They became “renegade sons.”—Jer. 3:14, 22; compare 4:22.

That it was in this national sense, and due to their covenant relationship, that God dealt with the Israelites as sons is seen by the fact that God simultaneously refers to himself, not only as their “Maker,” but also as their “Repurchaser” and even their “husbandly owner,” this latter expression placing Israel in the relationship of a wife to him. (Isa. 54:5, 6; compare 63:8; Jeremiah 3:14.) It was evidently with their covenant relationship in mind, and recognizing God as responsible for the formation of the nation, that the Israelites addressed themselves to Jehovah as “our Father.”—Isa. 63:16-19; compare Jeremiah 3:18-20; Hosea 1:10, 11.

The tribe of Ephraim became the most prominent tribe of the northern kingdom of ten tribes, its name often standing for that entire kingdom. Because Jehovah chose to have Ephraim receive the firstborn son’s blessing from his grandfather Jacob instead of Manasseh the real firstborn son of Joseph, Jehovah rightly spoke of the tribe of Ephraim as “my firstborn.”—Jer. 31:9, 20; Hos. 11:1-8, 12; compare Genesis 48:13-20.

Individual Israelite ‘sons’

God also designated certain individuals within Israel as his ‘sons,’ in a special sense. The second psalm, attributed to David at Acts 4:24-26, evidently applies to him initially when speaking of God’s “son.” (Ps. 2:1, 2, 7-12) The psalm was later fulfilled in Christ Jesus, as the context in Acts shows. Since the context in the psalm shows that God is speaking, not to a baby, but to a grown man, in saying, “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father,” it follows that David’s entry into such sonship resulted from God’s special selection of him for the kingship and from God’s fatherly dealings with him. (Compare Psalm 89:3, 19-27.) In a similar way Jehovah said of David’s son Solomon, “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son.”—2 Sam. 7:12-14; 1 Chron. 22:10; 28:6.

Loss of sonship

When Jesus was on earth the Jews still claimed God as their “Father.” But Jesus bluntly told certain opposing ones that they were ‘of their father the Devil,’ for they listened to and did the will and works of God’s adversary; hence they showed they were “not from God.” (John 8:41, 44, 47) This again shows that sonship with God on the part of any of Adam’s descendants requires, not simply some natural fleshly descent, but primarily God’s provision of a spiritual relationship with Him, and that such relationship, in turn, requires that the “sons” keep faith with God by manifesting his qualities, being obedient to his will and faithfully serving his purpose and interests.

CHRISTIAN SONS OF GOD

As John 1:11, 12 makes evident, only some of the nation of Israel, those showing faith in Christ Jesus, were granted “authority to become God’s children.” This Jewish “remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5) Christ’s ransom sacrifice brought out from under the Law covenant, which, though good and perfect, nevertheless condemned them as sinners, in the custody of sin as slaves, and thus Christ freed them that they might “receive the adoption as sons” and heirs through God.—Gal. 4:1-7; compare 3:19-26.

People of the nations, previously “without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12), also became reconciled to God through faith in Christ and came into the relationship of sons.—Rom. 9:8, 25, 26; Gal. 3:26-29.

As did Israel, these Christians form a covenant people, being brought into the “new covenant” made valid by the application of Christ’s shed blood. (Luke 22:20; Heb. 9:15) However, God deals individually with Christians in accepting them into this covenant. Because they hear the good news and exercise faith they are called to be joint heirs with God’s Son (Rom. 8:17; Heb. 3:1), are “declared righteous” by God on the basis of their faith in the ransom (Rom. 5:1, 2), and thus are ‘brought forth by the word of truth’ (Jas. 1:18), being “born again” as baptized Christians, begotten or produced by God’s spirit as his sons, due to enjoy spirit life in the heavens. (John 3:3; 1 Pet. 1:3, 4) They have received, not a spirit of slavery such as resulted from Adam’s trespass, but a “spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: ‘Abba, Father!’” (the term “Abba” being an intimate and endearing form of address). (See ABBA; ADOPTION [Christian significance].) (Rom. 8:14-17) Thanks to Christ’s superior mediatorship and priesthood and God’s undeserved kindness expressed through him, the sonship of these spirit-begotten Christians is a more intimate relationship with God than that enjoyed by fleshly Israel.—Heb. 4:14-16; 7:19-25; 12:18-24.

Maintaining sonship

Their “new birth” to this living hope (1 Pet. 1:3) does not of itself guarantee their continued sonship. They must be “led by God’s spirit,” not by their sinful flesh, and must be willing to suffer as Christ did. (Rom. 8:12-14, 17) They must be “imitators of God, as beloved children” (Eph. 5:1), reflecting his divine qualities of peace, love, mercy, kindness (Matt. 5:9, 44, 45; Luke 6:35, 36), being “blameless and innocent” of the things characterizing the “crooked and twisted generation” among whom they live (Phil. 2:15), purifying themselves of unrighteous practices (1 John 3:1-4, 9, 10), being obedient to God’s commandments and accepting his discipline.—1 John 5:1-3; Heb. 12:5-7.

Attaining full adoption as sons

Though called to be God’s children, while in the flesh they have only a “token of what is to come.” (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:1-5; Eph. 1:5, 13, 14) That is why the apostle, though speaking of himself and his fellow Christians as already “God’s sons,” could nevertheless say that “we ourselves also who have the first fruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves, while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom.” (Rom. 8:14, 23) Thus, after conquering the world by faithfulness until death, they receive the full realization of their sonship by being resurrected as spirit sons of God and “brothers” of God’s Chief Son, Christ Jesus.—Heb. 2:10-17; Rev. 21:7; compare 2:7, 11, 26, 27; 3:12, 21.

Those who are God’s spiritual children, called to this heavenly calling, know they are such, for God’s ‘spirit itself bears witness with their spirit that they are God’s children.’ (Rom. 8:16) This evidently means that their spirit, that is, their mental and emotional inclination (see SPIRIT), responds positively to the expressions of God’s spirit through his inspired Word in speaking about such heavenly hope and also responds to his dealings with them by that spirit. Thus they gain confidence that they are indeed God’s spiritual children and heirs.

THE CREATION ENTERS THE GLORIOUS FREEDOM OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD

The apostle speaks of the “glory that is going to be revealed in us” and also of the “eager expectation of the creation . . . waiting for the revealing of the sons of God.” (Rom. 8:18, 19) Since their glory is heavenly, it is clear that such “revealing” of their glory must be preceded by their resurrection to heavenly life. (Compare verse 23.) However, that this is not all that is involved, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 indicates by speaking of the “revelation of the Lord Jesus” as bringing judicial punishment on those judged adversely by God, doing so “at the time he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones.”—See REVELATION.

Since Paul says that “the creation” is waiting for this revealing, and will then be “set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God,” it is apparent that others aside from these heavenly “sons of God” receive benefit from their revelation in glory. (Rom. 8:19-23) While the Greek term rendered “creation” can refer to any creature, human or animal, or to creation in general, Paul’s references to it here as being in “eager expectation,” “waiting,” “subjected to futility, [though] not by its own will,” as being “set free from enslavement to corruption [in order to] have the glorious freedom of the children of God,” and as “groaning together” even as the Christian “sons” groan within themselves—these expressions all point conclusively to the human creation, the human family, hence not to creation in general, including animals, vegetation and other creations, both animate and inanimate. (Compare Colossians 1:23.) This must mean, then, that the revelation of the sons of God in glory opens the way for others of the human family to enter into a relationship of actual sonship with God and to enjoy the freedom that accompanies such relationship.—See GREAT CROWD; DECLARE RIGHTEOUS (Other Righteous Ones).

Since Christ Jesus is the one foretold to become the “Eternal Father” (Isa. 9:6) and since the Christian “sons of God” become his “brothers” (Rom. 8:29), it follows that there must be others of the human family who gain life through Christ Jesus and who are, not his joint heirs and associate kings and priests, but his subjects over whom he reigns.—Compare Matthew 25:34-40; Hebrews 2:10-12; Revelation 5:9, 10; 7:9, 10, 14-17; 20:4-9; 21:1-4.

It may be noted also that James (1:18) speaks of these spirit-begotten “sons of God” as being “certain first fruits” of God’s creatures, an expression similar to that used of the “hundred and forty-four thousand” who are “bought from among mankind” as described at Revelation 14:1-4. “First fruits” implies that other fruits follow, and hence the “creation” of Romans 8:19-22 evidently applies to such ‘after fruits’ or ‘secondary fruits’ of mankind who, through faith in Christ Jesus, gain eventual sonship in God’s universal family.

In speaking of the future “system of things” and the “resurrection from the dead” to life in that system, Jesus said that these become “God’s children by being children of the resurrection.”—Luke 20:34-36.

From all the foregoing information it can be seen that ‘sonship’ of humans in relation to God is viewed from several different aspects. In each case, then, the sonship must be viewed in context to determine what it embraces and the exact nature of the filial relationship.

CHRIST JESUS, THE SON OF GOD

The Gospel account by John particularly emphasizes Jesus’ prehuman existence as “the Word” and explains that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father.” (John 1:1-3, 14) That his sonship did not begin with his human birth is seen from Jesus’ own statements, as when saying that “what things I have seen with my Father I speak” (John 8:38, 42; compare 17:5, 24), as well as from other clear statements of his inspired apostles.—Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:9-11, 14.

Some commentators object to the translation of the Greek word mo·no·ge·nesʹ by the English “only-begotten.” They point out that the latter portion of the word (ge·nesʹ) does not come from gen·naʹo (“to beget”) but from geʹnos (“kind”), hence the term refers to ‘the only one of a class or kind.’ Thus many translations speak of Jesus as the “only Son” (RS; AT; JB) rather than the “only-begotten son” of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) However, while the individual components do not include the verbal sense of being born, the usage of the term definitely does embrace the idea of descent or birth, for the Greek word geʹnos means “stock; kin; direct descent; offspring; race.” It is translated “race” in 1 Peter 2:9. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome renders mo·no·ge·nesʹ as unigenitus, meaning “only-begotten” or “only.” This relationship of the term to birth or descent is recognized by numerous lexicographers.

Robinson’s A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (1859) gives the definition of mo·no·ge·nesʹ as: “only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.” W. J. Hickie’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (43rd printing, 1963) also gives: “only begotten.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by G. Kittel (Vol. IV pp. 738-741 [1967]) states: “The μονο-[mo-no] does not denote the source but the nature of derivation. Hence μονογενής [mo·no·ge·nesʹ] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters. This gives us the sense of only-begotten. The ref. is to the only child of one’s parents, primarily in relation to them. . . . But the word can also be used more generally without ref. to derivation in the sense of unique,’ ‘unparalleled,’ ‘incomparable,’ though one should not confuse the refs. to class or species and to manner.”

As to the use of the term in the Christian Greek Scriptures or “New Testament,” this latter work says: “It means ‘only-begotten.’ . . . In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9; [John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. . . . In Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 μονογενής denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1:14. In Jn. μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is μονογενής as the only-begotten.”

In view of these statements and in view of the plain evidence of the Scriptures themselves, there is no reason for objecting to translations showing that Jesus is, not merely God’s unique or incomparable Son, but also his “only-begotten Son,” hence descended from God in the sense of being produced by God. This is confirmed by apostolic references to this Son as “the firstborn of all creation” and as “the One born [form of gen·naʹo] from God” (Col. 1:15; 1 John 5:18), while Jesus himself states that he is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Rev. 3:14.

Jesus is God’s “firstborn” (Col. 1:15) as God’s first creation, called “the Word” in his prehuman existence. (John 1:1) The word “beginning” in John 1:1 cannot refer to the “beginning” of God the Creator, for he is eternal, having no beginning. (Ps. 90:2) It must therefore refer to the beginning of creation, when the Word was brought forth by God as his firstborn Son. The term “beginning” is used in various other texts similarly to describe the start of some period or career or course, such as the “beginning” of the Christian career of those to whom John wrote his first letter (1 John 2:7; 3:11), the “beginning” of Satan’s rebellious course (1 John 3:8) or of Judas’ deflection from righteousness. (John 6:64; see JUDAS No. 4 [Became corrupt].) Jesus is the “only-begotten Son” (John 3:16) in that he is the only one of God’s sons, spirit or human, created solely by God, for all others were created through or “by means of” that firstborn Son.—Col. 1:16, 17; see JESUS CHRIST (Prehuman Existence); ONLY-BEGOTTEN.

Jesus’ spirit begettal as Jehovah’s son and his return to heavenly sonship

Jesus, of course, continued to be God’s Son when born as a human, even as he had been in his pre-human existence. His birth was not the result of conception by the seed or sperm of any human male descended from Adam, but was by action of God’s holy spirit. (Matt. 1:20, 25; Luke 1:30-35; compare Matthew 22:42-45.) Jesus recognized his sonship in relation to God, at the age of twelve years saying to his earthly parents, “Did you not know that I must be in the house of my Father?” They did not grasp the sense of this, perhaps thinking that by “Father” he was referring to God only in the sense that the term was used by Israelites in general, as considered earlier.—Luke 2:48-50.

However, thirty years after his birth as a human, when he was baptized by John the Baptist, God’s spirit came upon Jesus and God spoke, saying: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” (Luke 3:21-23; Matt. 3:16, 17) Evidently Jesus, the man, was then “born again” to be a spiritual Son with the hope of returning to life in heaven, as well as anointed by spirit to be God’s appointed king and high priest. (John 3:3-6; compare 17:4, 5; see JESUS CHRIST [His Baptism].) A similar expression was made by God at the transfiguration on the mount, in which vision Jesus was seen in kingdom glory. (Compare Matthew 16:28 and 17:1-5.) With regard to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, Paul applied part of the second psalm to that occasion, quoting God’s words, “You are my son, I have become your Father this day,” and also applied words from God’s covenant with David, namely: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son.” (Ps. 2:7; 2 Sam. 7:14; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; compare Hebrews 5:5.) By his resurrection from the dead to spirit life Jesus was “declared God’s Son” (Rom. 1:4), “declared righteous in spirit.”—1 Tim. 3:16.

Thus, it is seen that, even as David as a grown man could ‘become God’s son’ in a special sense, so, too, Christ Jesus also ‘became God’s Son’ in a special way, both at the time of his baptism and at his resurrection, and also, evidently, becomes such in a special sense at the time of his entrance into full Kingdom glory.

False charge of blasphemy

Because of Jesus’ references to God as his Father, certain opposing Jews leveled the charge of blasphemy against him, saying, “You, although being a man, make yourself a god.” (John 10:33) Here the Greek does not use the article and thus specifically indicate “God” (that is, “the God”), but the term is anarthrous (without the article). There is no indefinite article (corresponding to “a” or “an”) in koi·neʹ Greek. Most translations here say “God”; Torrey’s translation lowercases the word as “god,” while the interlinear reading of The Emphatic Diaglott says “a god.” Support for the rendering “a god” is found principally in Jesus’ own answer, in which he quoted from Psalm 82:1-7. As can be seen, this text did not refer to persons as being called “God,” but “gods” and “sons of the Most High.”

According to the context, those whom Jehovah called “gods” and “sons of the Most High” in this psalm were Israelite judges who had been practicing injustice, requiring that Jehovah himself now judge ‘in the middle of such gods.’ (Ps. 82:1-6, 8) Since Jehovah applied these terms to those men, Jesus was certainly guilty of no blasphemy in saying, “I am God’s Son.” Whereas the works of those judicial “gods” belied their claim to being “sons of the Most High,” Jesus’ works consistently proved him to be in union, in harmonious accord and relationship, with his Father.—John 10:34-38.

SON OF MAN

In Hebrew this is mainly a translation of the expression ben ʼa·dhamʹ. Rather than referring to the person, Adam, ʼa·dhamʹ is here used generically for “mankind” so that the expression ben ʼa·dhamʹ means, in essence, a son of mankind, a human or earthling son. (Ps. 80:17; 146:3; Jer. 49:18, 33) The phrase is often employed in parallel with other Hebrew terms for “man,” namely, ʼish, meaning a male person (compare Numbers 23:19; Job 35:8; Jeremiah 50:40) and ʼenoshʹ, a mortal man. (Compare Psalm 8:4; Isaiah 51:12; 56:2.) At Psalm 144:3 the “son of mortal man” is ben ʼenoshʹ, while the Aramaic equivalent (bar ʼenashʹ) appears at Daniel 7:13.

In Greek the expression is hui·osʹ tou an·throʹpou, the latter part of the phrase representing the Greek generic word for “man” (anʹthro·pos, from which the English “anthropology” is derived).

In the Hebrew Scriptures the most frequent occurrence of the expression is in the book of Ezekiel, where over ninety times God addresses the prophet as “son of man.” (Ezek. 2:1, 3, 6, 8; and so forth.) The designation as so used apparently serves to emphasize that the prophet is simply an earthling, thus heightening the contrast between the human spokesman and the Source of his message, the Most High God. The same designation is applied to the prophet Daniel at Daniel 8:17.

CHRIST JESUS, THE “SON OF MAN”

In the Gospel accounts the expression is found nearly eighty times, applying in every case to Jesus Christ, being used by him to refer to himself. (Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; and so forth.) The occurrences outside the Gospel accounts are at Acts 7:56; Hebrews 2:6; and Revelation 1:13; 14:14.

Jesus’ application of this expression to himself clearly showed that God’s Son was now indeed a human, having ‘become flesh’ (John 1:14), having ‘come to be out of a woman’ through his conception and birth to the Jewish virgin Mary. (Gal. 4:4; Luke 1:34-36) Hence he had not simply materialized a human body as angels had previously done (see ANGEL), or ‘incarnated,’ but was actually a ‘son of mankind’ through his human mother.—Compare 1 John 4:2, 3; 2 John 7.

For this reason the apostle Paul could apply the eighth psalm as prophetic of Jesus Christ. In his letter to the Hebrews (2:5-9), Paul quoted the verses reading: “What is mortal man [ʼenohshʹ] that you keep him in mind, and the son of earthling man [ben ʼa·dhamʹ] that you take care of him? You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones [“a little lower than angels,” at Hebrews 2:7], and with glory and splendor you then crowned him. You make him dominate over the works of your hands; everything you have put under his feet.” (Ps. 8:4-6; compare Psalm 144:3.) Paul shows that, to fulfill this prophetic psalm, Jesus indeed was made “a little lower than angels,” becoming actually a mortal “son of earthling man,” that he might die as such and thereby “taste death for every man,” thereafter being crowned with glory and splendor by his Father, who resurrected him.—Heb. 2:8, 9; compare verse 14; Philippians 2:5-9.

The designation “Son of man,” therefore, also serves to identify Jesus Christ as the great Kinsman of mankind, having the ransoming power to redeem them from bondage to sin and death, as well as the great Avenger of blood.—Lev. 25:48, 49; Num. 35:1-29; see AVENGER OF BLOOD; RANSOM; REPURCHASE, REPURCHASER.

Thus, Jesus’ being called the “Son of David” (Matt. 1:1; 9:27) emphasizes his being the heir of the Kingdom covenant to be fulfilled in David’s line; his being called the “Son of man” calls attention to his being of the human race by virtue of his fleshly birth; his being called the “Son of God” stresses his being of divine origin, not descended from the sinner Adam nor inheriting imperfection from him, and as having a fully righteous standing with God.—Matt. 16:13-17.

The “sign of the Son of man”

However, there is evidently another major reason for Jesus’ frequent use of the expression “Son of man” as applying to himself. This is with regard to the fulfillment of the prophecy recorded at Daniel 7:13, 14. In vision, Daniel saw “someone like a son of man” coming with the clouds of the heavens, gaining access to the “Ancient of Days,” and being granted “rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him,” his kingdom being an enduring one.

Because the angelic interpretation of the vision in verses 18, 22, and 27 speaks of “the holy ones of the Supreme One” as taking possession of this kingdom, many commentators have endeavored to show that the “son of man” is here a “corporate personality,” that is, “the saints of God in their corporate aspect . . . regarded collectively as a people,” “the glorified and ideal people of Israel.” This reasoning, however, proves superficial in the light of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It fails to consider that Christ Jesus, God’s anointed King, made a ‘covenant for a kingdom’ with his followers that they might share with him in his kingdom, and that, while they are to rule as kings and priests, it is under his headship and by his grant of authority. (Luke 22:28-30; Rev. 5:9, 10; 20:4-6) Thus, they received ruling authority over the nations only because he has first received such authority from the Sovereign God.—Rev. 2:26, 27; 3:21.

The correct understanding is made more evident by Jesus’ own statements. Regarding the “sign of the Son of man,” he stated that “they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matt. 24:30) This was clearly a reference to Daniel’s prophecy. So, likewise, was his answer to the high priest’s interrogation, saying: “I am [the Christ, the Son of God]; and you persons will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”—Mark 14:61, 62; Matt. 26:63, 64.

Therefore the prophecy of the coming of the Son of man into the presence of the Ancient of Days, Jehovah God, clearly applies to an individual, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The evidence is that it was so understood by the Jewish people. Rabbinical writings applied the prophecy to the Messiah. It was doubtless due to wanting some literal fulfillment of this prophecy that the Pharisees and Sadducees asked Jesus to “display to them a sign from heaven.” (Matt. 16:1; Mark 8:11) After Jesus had died as a man and been resurrected to spirit life, Stephen had a vision in which the “heavens opened up” and he saw “the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.” (Acts 7:56) This shows that Jesus Christ, although sacrificing his human nature as a ransom for mankind, rightly retains the Messianic designation of “Son of man” in his heavenly position.

The first part of Jesus’ statement to the high priest about the coming of the Son of man spoke of him as “sitting at the right hand of power.” This is evidently an allusion to the prophetic Psalm 110, Jesus Christ having earlier shown that this psalm applied to him. (Matt. 22:42-45) This psalm, as well as the apostle’s application of it at Hebrews 10:12, 13,