It is noteworthy, however, that Jesus never claims for himself the
title “Son of God.” While he is represented as accepting it in Mark 14:61
62, both Matthew (27:64) and Luke (22:67) are at pains to tone down
Jesus’ acceptance of the title as though what he says to the High Priest is,
“It—like the title ‘messiah’—is your word, not mine.”84
Hasting’s Bible Dictionary concurs: “Whether Jesus used it [“Son of God”] of
himself is doubtful …”85
Might the phrase “son of man” imply uniqueness? Apparently not—the book of
Ezekiel contains ninetythree references to Ezekiel as “son of man.”
All of which leaves an objective researcher with the following conclusions:
1. Jesus is assumed to be exactly what he called himself.
2. Jesus called himself “son of man.” Eightyeight times.
3. Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus call himself a literal “son of God.” Not once.
4. And in any case, in Jewish idiom the term “son of God” was either
metaphorical or contrary to monotheism.
Christian clergy openly acknowledge the above, but claim that although Jesus
never called himself “son of God,” others did. This too has an answer.
Investigating the manuscripts that make up the New Testament, one finds that the
alleged “sonship” of Jesus is based upon the mistranslation of two Greek words—pais
and huios, both of which are translated as “son.” However, this translation appears
disingenuous. The Greek word pais derives from the Hebrew ebed, which bears the
primary meaning of servant, or slave. Hence, the primary translation of pais theou is
“servant of God,” with “child” or “son of God” being an extravagant embellishment.
According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “The Hebrew original of
pais in the phrase pais theou, i.e., ebed, carries a stress on personal relationship and has
first the sense of ‘slave.’” 87 This is all the more interesting because it dovetails perfectly
with the prophecy of Isaiah 42:1, upheld in Matthew 12:18: “Behold, My servant [i.e.,
from the Greek pais] whom I have chosen, My beloved in whom my soul is well
pleased …” Whether a person reads the King James Version, New King James Version,
New Revised Standard Version, or New International Version, the word is “servant” in
all cases. Considering that the purpose of revelation is to make the truth of God clear, one
might think this passage an unsightly mole on the face of the doctrine of divine sonship.
After all, what better place for God to have declared Jesus His son? What better place to
have said, “Behold, My son whom I have begotten …”? But He didn’t say that. For that
matter, the doctrine lacks biblical support in the recorded words of both Jesus and God, and there is good reason to wonder why. Unless, that is, Jesus was nothing more than the
servant of God this passage describes.