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,