“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

Why does Jesus say there are multiple 'sons of God'?

This statement made by Jesus completely negates the notion put forth by so many sectarian teachers that Jesus is the only son of God. Why, if Jesus is the only son of God, would he say there are multiple sons of God?

Quite obviously, the use of a plural form by Jesus clarifies that the assumption of God having only one son is preposterous. While practically any human can have five or more sons, God can only have one?

In this verse, some Biblical translations will say "children of God" (KJV, NIV, NLT, NET, WEB) - while others translate υἱοὶ θεοῦ to "sons of God" (NKJV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV, ASV, YLT, DBY, HNV).

Why would the other Biblical translations translate this to "children of God" while translating virtually the same Greek words (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) but singular to "son of God"?

This started as a Roman strategy to politically organize Christianity to better control the populace of the Roman Empire (and later, the Holy Roman Empire). The Roman Emperor Constantine and Roman Bishop Eusebius (soon to be Pope) organized the political assembly of the First Council of Nicaea. Here they developed the Nicene Creed in order to define Jesus in a way consistent with their political positions.

For this reason, the earliest Latin translations describe Jesus repeatedly as "Son of God," consistent with the Roman term given to Caesar and other Roman Emperors such as Nero. This terminology, however, was not consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the teachers in Jesus' lineage such as John the Baptist, Isaiah, David, Moses, and Abraham.

This institutional strategy of manipulating the interpretation of Jesus continued with the Second Council of Ephesus. Here, a political debate that led to the creation of the Roman Catholic Church ensued. 

What does υἱὸς mean in this context?

Jesus' statement from the Greek text sheds light on the correct translation of the word translated to “son,” υἱός (huios). While this can indicate an offspring when the context is a physical family. But there are also several other meanings of the word in other contexts.

For example, we can see how υἱός can be narrowly translated to "son" when Jesus referred to Simon as the son of Jonah.

But in the context that Jesus refers to in Matthew 5:9, the word is more appropriately defined, from the Thayer's Greek lexicon, as "one who depends on another or is his follower." 

In the context of spiritual life, this would be describing someone who is a devoted follower. 

Furthermore, Thayer's lexicon clarifies that the phrase can refer to the "representative of God."

Devoted follower also makes more sense within the context of the attribute that Jesus is giving those who apply his teachings, thereby becoming "peacemakers." If we utilize the correct translation to “devoted follower,” we discover the statement’s true meaning: by becoming dedicated to Jesus and God, we become a devoted follower of God.

This interpretation is supported by other statements by Jesus:

"But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:35-36 NKJV)

The same Greek word υἱὸς is also used to refer to those who are followers of darkness - the "kingdom" of "darkness" in another statement by Jesus:

“But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:12 NKJV)

Then the same Greek word υἱὸς is applied to another statement of Jesus, attributed to those who were attendants of the bridegroom:

"Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast." (Matthew 9:15 ASV)

In all of these statements, we find the Greek word υἱός being used by Jesus here and elsewhere in contexts no describing a physical offspring ("son"). They all refer to those who are devoted in some way, to either God and the resurrection, to the kingdom of darkness, or to the bridechamber (Matt. 9:15).

For this reason, other versions have translated υἱός alternatively. These alternate translations of υἱός in these verses include "attendants" or "servants" (of the bridegroom) or "children" (of the kingdom or of the resurrection or of God).

Why are alternatives to "son" okay in these cases, but not for alternatives for "son" in the case of "son of God"? Why can't Jesus also be considered as a "child of God" or "follower of God" or "servant of God"? Why is the translation of υἱός to "son" only apply for certain in Jesus' case, and not in these other cases?

Because many translations of the Bible have been used to manipulate followers of sectarian institutions. Translating υἱός to "son" without alternative even though "son" is not a logical translation of the relationship between Jesus and God follows the indoctrination by the church and it's Synod of Nicea to a particular narrative: That Jesus is somehow the only begotten son of the Supreme Being.

As if the Supreme Being did not also beget many others. As if the Supreme Being became impotent after begetting Jesus. As if the Supreme Being gave up His ability to procreate following His creation of Jesus.

Are there other Biblical references to 'sons of God'?

There are multiple references to "sons of God" among popular Bible translations:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:2)

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6)

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. (Job 2:1)

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Matt. 6:9)

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:14)

For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. (Romans 8:19)

These all point to "sons of God" being used to describe devoted followers or servants of God.

Within the context of Jesus, and many of those who also preached on behalf of the Supreme Being, there is another potential translation for υἱός (huios). This would be applicable in the case of when the loving servant is teaching others on behalf of God: This would make that person a representative of God. One who is serving and following God will also represent God. This was Jesus' role - he is representing the Supreme Being.

These all point to "sons of God" being used to describe devoted followers or loving servants of God and in some contexts - for Jesus in particular, the representative of God.

What did Jesus mean by 'peacemakers'?

One might wonder what making peace has to do with becoming a devoted follower of God - “Blessed are the peacemakers..."

Does this mean the opposite of war? Someone who makes peace between warring tribes or nations?

And what about Jesus? Was he always making peace? When Jesus turned the tables at the marketplace at the Temple he certainly was not making peace.

And when Jesus criticized the Pharisees as hypocrites he was not making peace with them. 

The conventional meaning of "peace" would not be appropriate in this context.

On the other hand, making "peace" with God and following God’s instructions would be the ultimate in peace-making. This gives rise to the expression: Make your peace with God.

When we act in a self-centered fashion, we find ourselves in conflict with God, because God is full of love and kindness. This is the opposite of peace.

God is by nature, a loving, giving and compassionate God. If we are working against that nature, we are in conflict with God and ourselves.

But if we use our lives to grow closer to God, we are making peace with God. That would make us "peacemakers" in the context of Jesus' statement. This is because God wants us to come back to Him. He wants us to revive our loving relationship with Him. This is why Jesus taught:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:37-38)

“... whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17-19)

“Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17-19)

Is Jesus pleased with Peter's response?

Jesus said this to Peter after Jesus asked:

"Who do people say the Son of Man is?" (Matthew 16:13)

Peter then replied to Jesus' question:

"You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16)

Why was Jesus so pleased by Simon’s (later renamed Peter by Jesus) response? Just saying that Jesus was the son of the living God? Why was this something that could not have been revealed to Peter by man? Certainly, as some sectarian teachers proclaim, it is pretty easy to answer that Jesus was the son of God. Why was Simon's statement revealed to him by God rather than man?

The two operators of Simon's statement are Jesus’ being the “son” or loving servant and child of God, and Jesus being the “Christ” or Messiah”.

Why is Jesus pleased with being called 'Messiah' and 'Son of God'?

As we have discussed with the previous verse, the translation of the Greek word υἱὸς can mean either "son" in the context of a physical family, or it can mean "one who follows or is dependent upon another," according to the Greek lexicon. This latter translation translates to being a follower or more appropriately, a loving servant.

But in the context of describing Jesus, the word υἱός (huios) would provide a further translation: specific to the loving servant teaching on behalf of God: This is being the representative of God. One who is dependent upon God and is serving God will also represent God in some situations. This was Jesus' role - he is representing the Supreme Being.

But when the context relates to one who is devoted to or a follower of God - then the relationship is one of service. Providing loving service to the Supreme Being.

In Luke 20:34-34, Jesus said:

“The people of this age…. And they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children…”

Here Jesus talks about people who grow in their spiritual maturity, and become elevated to the stature of becoming the Supreme Being's loving children - though "children" is also being translated from υἱὸς - and thus more appropriately translated to servants - "God's servants".

Regardless, we see the intimacy of such a relationship with the Supreme Being. Such was the intimate, devoted and loving relationship between Jesus and God.

In this we can also see that Jesus never configured that he was the only servant of God. This is a product of some sectarian interpreters who tried to create a monopoly among religious institutions. It is an illogical proposal anyway: Is God so limited (impotent) that He can have only one son?

To the contrary, Jesus also said:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons [servants] of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

and

"For they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons [servants] of God, being sons of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36 RSV)

Jesus also uses the word υἱὸς (mistranslated to "sons") to refer to "servant" or "devoted follower" elsewhere:

"while the sons [servants or subjects] of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matthew 8:12 RSV)

and

"Can the sons [servants or attendants] of the bride chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast." (Matthew 9:15 ASV)

In all of these statements, we find the Greek word υἱός being used by Jesus, and none of them refer to a physical offspring. Among the different versions they are translated differently - we illustrated those translations using "son."

To this, we add other statements from and there are multiple references to "sons of God" among the English Bible translations:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:2)

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6)

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. (Job 2:1)

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Matt. 6:9)

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:14)

For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. (Romans 8:19)

In the Old Testament, the word translated to "sons" is בֵּן (ben) - which can also be either translated to "son" or "a member of a guild, order, class" - in other words, a devoted follower or servant.

We can see clearly that the references above are not to a "son" - a male child of a particular parent. The context is broader. The context is a devotional context.

A more appropriate translation given the context, is, "devoted follower of God" or “loving servant of God" rather than "son of God."

What does Messiah mean?

In terms of “Messiah,” we must understand the origin and meaning of this word and separate it from the institutional interpretation.

The origin of the word from Aramaic means "the anointed” or “anointed one.” The related word used interchangeably is the word “Christ” which is most closely translated as “savior.”

The concept of an “anointed one” comes from the ancient Hebrew concept of a person being chosen by God to unite the tribes of Israel and usher in a day of peace and prosperity. This has become termed as the “messianic age.” However, we can see that "anointing" was performed between a priest and student:

So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites went down and put Solomon on King David's mule and escorted him to Gihon. Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. (1 Kings 38-39)

Then the LORD said, "Rise and anoint him; he is the one."
So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power. Samuel then went to Ramah.
(1 Samuel 16:1-13)

So we can see that many of the prophets were in fact, anointed. We can also see the usage of anointed and "savior" also indicates a reference for someone who would lead his followers into spiritual realization. If we consider the Bible as a resource for spiritual growth rather than a history book, we can see that so many teachers, such as Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jacob and others were all chosen by God to teach to those around them in hopes of delivering them or saving them.

Who is doing the saving?

As we investigate further, we find that the intended meaning of the word “messiah” or “anointed one” to be a person who was chosen by God to deliver or “save” a person spiritually by introducing them to God and teaching them in such a way that they become loving servants of God. 

Messiah was a general term used to describe God's loving servants who taught on His behalf. It was stated as an esteemed post or position because anyone God chose to represent Him would be honored due to having a devout relationship with the Supreme Being.

In other words, prior to Jesus, Judean priests had considered the Prophets to be Messiahs. Thus it was considered a role, rather than a single person.

And interestingly, the Judean priests also were awaiting the arrival of the next Messiah - even as Jesus was in their midst.

Because the Messiah was seen as the messenger of God, ultimately this makes God the ultimate Messiah.

Jesus also saw this clearly. He didn't want others to proclaim his glory unless they connected it to the Supreme Being. This is why he said:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-22)

Did God die?

The institutional doctrine offered from the First Council of Nicaea in 325 suggests that Jesus is “God the Son.” Other institutions and their teachers have expanded this doctrine to state that Jesus is quite simply God.

Accompanying this doctrine in many institutions today is the teaching that Jesus "died for our sins."

What is the problem with this doctrine? This doctrine has forgotten the very Person that Jesus came to teach us about. Instead of worshiping the Supreme Being that Jesus came to teach us about and doing the Supreme Being's will and loving the Supreme Being as Jesus taught, they figured that they would just slide Jesus in that role. Now Jesus is supposed to be the Supreme Being, and now they teach that "God became man (in Jesus) and God died on the cross."

So God died? This is what they are teaching. They teach that the Supreme Being died on the cross and then was resurrected in three days.

So they are saying that the Supreme Being, the Creator, and Controller of the universe, came down to earth and became a human being, and then died in order to save us.

First of all, why, if God was the Controller of everything, would He have to be beaten and suffer on a cross and die in order to save us?

And what happened to the universe between the time when God supposedly died and when He was resurrected? Who took care of the universe during that time?

These are, quite simply, falsehoods. God never became Jesus. The Supreme Being controls everything and He can save anyone with a simple thought. He doesn't need to subject Himself to any kind of sacrifice in order to save anyone.

Even the teaching that Jesus "rose after three days" makes no sense. First, because he was crucified on Friday and he supposedly "rose" on Sunday - two days later.

But secondly, the idea that Jesus rose in his physical body after that body was punctured and confirmed to be dead, and Jesus himself "breathed his last" and "gave up his spirit" according to the Gospels, indicates that Jesus left his physical body at the time of death:

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. (Matthew 27:50) 

Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)

These verses indicate that Jesus' "spirit" left his physical body. When the body "gives up the spirit" the physical body dies. This means that the "spirit" - the person who animates the body - leaves the physical body at the time of death.

Since Jesus then appeared to his close disciples two days later this indicates that Jesus was able to produce an apparition for their eyes to see - much as angels can appear in this world.

Otherwise, Jesus could not have appeared in his physical body before his disciples. How could he have come through the locked door? How could he have shown his wounds, which would have been oozing with blood, leaking all over the place?

This was accomplished through apparition. Jesus' spirit was able to appear in a form similar to his last human body so his disciples could recognize him.

But some could not. When he appeared to Mary, she didn't recognize him. He was walking beside her asking her questions. Why didn't she recognize him? Because he was changing his appearance to suit the situation. He was appearing as an apparition. As an angel. This is also why he could suddenly appear and disappear, without walking away or walking in.

Is this about a change of heart?

Jesus' body was brutally tortured and murdered. And his suffering is a testament to his love for the Supreme Being. And yes, should a person come to understand Jesus' total dedication to the Supreme Being, this has the ability to save that person.

But it is not an automatic process. There must be realization. There must be a change of heart.

If God became Jesus, then who was Jesus praying to when he said:

"My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matthew 26:39)

Jesus came to teach us to come to a loving relationship with a Person that Jesus himself had a loving relationship with: the Supreme Being. Jesus was the loving servant and child of God, who made great sacrifices in order to teach us to love God. This was his mission.

Yes, it is true, that the loving servant and representative of God can truly be perceived as connected with God. As the representative of God, they are connected with the Supreme Being. Thus they can and should be seen as a manifestation of God’s love for us. But they should never be confused with the Supreme Being Himself.

Jesus might be compared to an ambassador, or representative of a country, being in another country. The country treats this representative in the same way they would treat the country's president. Any disrespect of the ambassador would be offensive to the president. But at the same time, no one would say that this ambassador is the president or the government itself. It would be ridiculous to make that confusion.

The loving relationship between God and Jesus is the rock upon which one can build their own relationship with the Supreme Being. This is the essence of the spiritual world: Coming to love and lovingly serve the Supreme Being is our innate role and what will ultimately make each of us fulfilled.

“This is my son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Matthew 17:5)

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" (Matthew 17:1-5)

What does 'This is my son, whom I love' mean?

The English translators have used "son", but the translation of the Greek word translated to “son” here is υἱός (huios). This could indicate a relationship of offspring in the physical sense but only within "a restricted" context according to the lexicon.

In this context, we must use the more appropriate meaning from the lexicon: "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower." 

This thus would be more appropriately translated to: "devoted follower" or “loving servant.” If devotion and love are assumed, "servant" can be used singly.

And in the context of Jesus, we can add an additional possible translation of υἱός (huios) - utilized for the loving servant who is introducing us to the Supreme Being: The representative of God. This is also discussed in Thayer's lexicon.

One who is representing God is also serving God. But one who is representing God is providing an important and valuable service to God and to all of us. This was Jesus' role - he is representing the Supreme Being.

Why 'servants' and not 'sons'?

This translation of the Greek word υἱός (huios) to "servants" is supported by numerous statements in the Bible. In fact, practically the entire Bible is a narration of the activities of God's various servants. 

Ironically, those teachers and institutions who claim to be servants of Jesus have mistranslated this very key word to "sons." Is not service to God the mainstay and pillar of Jesus' teachings?

There is clear evidence of this, including three statements by Jesus himself:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons [servants] of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

and

"For they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons [servants] of God, being sons of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36 RSV)

Jesus also uses the word υἱὸς to refer to "servant" or "follower" elsewhere:

"But the subjects [servants] of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 8:12)

and

“How can the guests [servants] of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast." (Matthew 9:15 ASV)

In all of these statements, we find the Greek word υἱός being used, yet none are referring to physical offspring. They all refer to people who are servants in some way, to either God and the resurrection, "the kingdom," or to the bridegroom.

Evidencing the latter, Matthew 9:15 has also been translated to "attendants of the bridegroom" (NAV). And clearly, an attendant should be considered - at least at the time of Jesus - a servant.

Other statements provide clear references to "sons of God" among Bible translations:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:1-2)

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6)

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. (Job 2:1)

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Matt. 6:9)

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:14)

For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. (Romans 8:19)

In the Old Testament verses above, "sons" or "children" are being translated from the Hebrew word בֵּן (ben). This word refers not just to "son" or "male child," but also, according to the lexicon, to "a member of a guild, order, class." As such, it refers to a subject - or devoted servant.

Likewise, in all the above New Testament verses, the word "sons" is being translated from the Greek word υἱὸς - used also to describe Jesus as the "son of God." All are also translated to "sons" in most Biblical translations, except for Luke 20:36, for which most Biblical translations use the English word "children." Nevertheless, Jesus is using the same Greek word (υἱὸς) in all three statements, the same word used to Jesus as a "son of God."

How did Jesus please God?

If God says that Jesus pleases Him, then it means that Jesus is giving God pleasure. What kind of person gives pleasure to another person? Certainly, a person who is devoted to pleasing that person - a loving servant.

Certainly, if someone is pleased with someone’s activities, then those activities are being done within the context of service. By God saying that He was pleased with Jesus, we know that Jesus must have been working for the pleasure of God. In other words, Jesus was trying to please God. 

Thus we can say without any doubt that Jesus’ role was one of a loving servant of God who was trying to please God with his activities. This reveals a relationship - one of reciprocal love: God is exchanging a loving relationship with Jesus.

Thus we can offer two possible translations of God's statement:

“This is my beloved Servant, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him!”

Either would be correctly describing the relationship between Jesus and God. The fact that there is a loving relationship between God and Jesus is very clear, not only from this statement but the many statements by Jesus as well. Consider this statement, made by Jesus:

"Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but He who sent me is true. You do not know Him, but I know Him because I am from Him and He sent me." (John 7:28-29)

This makes the relationship between God and Jesus very clear. It is obvious that Jesus is not God, but rather, God's servant. God has sent Jesus as His messenger.

Is there a loving relationship between God and Jesus?

Since Jesus was there, speaking with Moses and Elijah, and the cloud enveloped all of them, and because the voice was speaking of Jesus in the third person, we have to concede that the voice was God’s voice. Who else would be speaking of Jesus in this context?

From the above statement by the Supreme Being we can see that God is an individual Who is separate from Jesus. For someone to be pleased with someone else’s activities, there must be two individuals, with two separate roles. The one who is pleased must have a separate identity from the one who is trying to please them. Otherwise, there would be no expectation or need to please that person.

In other words, the fact that Jesus is pleasing to the Supreme Being means Jesus is not the Supreme Being.

Furthermore, it means there is an intimate relationship between Jesus and God. Jesus is working to please the Supreme Being and the Supreme Being is pleased with Jesus. The fact that Jesus is working to please the Supreme Being is confirmed by some of Jesus' statements, such as:

"By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me." (John 7:16)

In addition, the one who pleases the other must have a choice to do things that are pleasing or not. Otherwise, there would be no possibility of pleasure, because the actions would be expected.

Here we can see the affection between God and Jesus. We see that God is pleased with Jesus. This illustrates the loving relationship between God and Jesus. A loving relationship requires individuality and some measure of the freedom to choose whether to please the other person or not.

God then goes on to comment about Jesus' teachings: “Listen to him!” God says. What does this tell us? Notice that God didn't say, "Wait until Jesus dies on the cross and then you will be saved." He tells us to listen to Jesus' teachings:

Why did God say, 'listen to him'?

Yes, the Supreme Being is instructing those around Jesus to carefully hear and follow Jesus' teachings. Why? Because it is Jesus' teachings that can save us, should we decide to listen to those teachings, and follow them.

It is not as if we simply have to go to church and "bathe in the blood" of Jesus and we are saved. This is ludicrous.

Furthermore, we can also see from God's statement what we can do to please the Supreme Being: We can carefully study Jesus’ teachings, and we can follow his instructions.

And what was Jesus' most important instruction?

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

“What do you want me to do for you?” (Matthew 20:32)

Jesus said this to two blind men who sitting by the roadside as he was walking with a procession down the road:

As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!" The crowd rebuked them and told them to be quiet, but they shouted all the louder, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!" Jesus stopped and called them. "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. "Lord," they answered, "we want our sight." Jesus had compassion on them and touched their eyes. Immediately they received their sight and followed him. (Matthew 20:29-34)

Was Jesus really the son of David?

According to this translation, the blind men greeted Jesus as "Lord, Son of David." Really? What does that mean? David lived nearly a thousand years prior to Jesus.

The Greek phrase υἱὸς Δαυίδ is typically translated to "son of David" in most versions of the Bible. But could they or would they accurately address Jesus as the son of David? Was David, who was born about 900 years before Jesus was born, really Jesus' father? How could that be so?

Or do they mean that Jesus was a part of the family genealogy of David?

Two books of the New Testament (Luke and Matthew) illustrate two yet different genealogies that theoretically connect David to Joseph. However, Joseph was Jesus' adoptive father. So Jesus was not actually a genetic relative of David assuming these genealogies. This means that Jesus' body could not even be the great-, great- (et al.) grandson of David.

Furthermore, the modern texts of the New Testament indicate that Mary was a virgin. This means what is termed the immaculate conception - meaning that Jesus didn't have a physical father at all.

If these points are true - how could Jesus rationally be called the "son of David"? And how could Bible translators logically translate this phrase to "son of David"?

Could 'son of David' be a mistranslation?

The word "son" in this phrase has been translated from the Greek word υἱὸς. 

Yes, this Greek word υἱὸς can mean "son" when used in the context of a physical family. But it can also mean,  "one who follows or is dependent upon another," according to the Greek lexicon. 

This latter meaning, according to Thayer's lexicon, translates to being a follower or a pupil. Furthermore, Thayer also evidences the use of the word in the context of being a representative.

In other words, the more appropriate translation of υἱὸς Δαυίδ is that Jesus was a follower of David, a student of David, or a representative of David within the context being spoken of in this conversation.

Jesus was not the physical offspring of David. Rather, he was in line with the teachings of David and was a follower of David's teachings. We know this because Jesus often quoted David. Jesus even quoted David during his last moments on the cross.

What about the genealogy linking Jesus to David?

Let's review the details of what was said above regarding the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. 

In both Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23, we find that both genealogies are linking Jesus through Joseph.

Yet we also find both Gospels state that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. This means Joseph was not Jesus' father.

We also find that both Gospels suggest otherwise that Joseph, who was much older than Mary, was not the father of the child:

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18)

This would indicate that Joseph was not Jesus' father. Therefore, both genealogies are not portraying Jesus' ancestry.

We should also note that Matthew utilizes the terms υἱός, defined above; and γεννάω, a word that can mean "to begat or give birth" but also "imparting to them spiritual life" according to Thayer's lexicon.

This means that both of these supposed genealogies may have intended originally to describe the teaching lineage of Jesus - rather than Jesus' physical ancestry.

Regardless of the original intent, it is clear that for thousands of years, and among ancient Judaism, the teachings of love for God had been passed down personally from teacher to student. From devoted teacher to devoted student, the truth was passed on for centuries.

In some but not all instances, the student was also the physical son of the teacher, such as Jacob and Joseph. 

But then we find that Joshua was not Moses' son. Nor was David Samuel's son, or Saul's son. And Samuel was not Eli's son. And Lot was not Abraham's son. Nor was Melchizedek Abraham's father. Yet in all these and other instances the student was not the son of the teacher.

Genealogy has been highlighted among the translations of the Bible is rooted in the penchant among some institutional temples (which Jesus argued against) to establish the notion of there being a "chosen people." As though being born within a certain family gave one person greater rights to being devoted to God.

This notion is not only untrue historically as pointed out above. It also bears witness against the very nature of the teachings of the Prophets: That any one of us could devote our life at any time to the Supreme Being.

Indeed, each of us has the opportunity to worship God. The family our body is born into does not dictate that opportunity.

Servants instead of sons?

A follower, pupil or representative as noted above, would be an appropriate translation of the Greek word υἱὸς. These also yield another possible translation in the context of a devotional relationship. One of deference or service to another:

"The greatest among you will be your servant." (Matthew 23:11)

From Jesus' statement in Matthew 20:32, these are not the words of someone who feels in charge. Jesus did not greet the blind men as though he were their ruler or master. He spoke to them humbly, as he cared for that person's welfare: “What do you want me to do for you?”

This is a statement of someone who is in the service of another.

The concept that Jesus was a servant of God is supported by Jesus himself. In many instances, such a position was translated into the word "son" or "sons" when Jesus was referring to "servant."

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons [servants] of God.” (Matt. 5:9)

and

"For they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons [servants] of God, being sons [servants] of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36 RSV)

Jesus also uses the word υἱὸς to refer to "servant" or "follower" elsewhere:

"while the sons [servants] of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matt. 8:12 RSV)

and

"Can the sons [servants] of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast." (Matt. 9:15 ASV)

In all of these statements, we find the Greek word υἱός being used by Jesus, and none of them refer to a physical offspring. They all refer to people devoted in some way, to either God and the resurrection, "the kingdom," or to the bridechamber (Matthew 9:15 has also thus been translated to "attendants of the bridegroom" (NASB)).

To this, we add other statements from the and there are multiple references to "sons of God" among the English Bible translations:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons [servants] of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:2)

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons [servants] of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

Now there was a day when the sons [servants] of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6)

Again there was a day when the sons [servants] of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. (Job 2:1)

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons [servants] of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons [servants] of God." (Matt. 6:9)

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons [servants] of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons [servants] of God. (Romans 8:14)

For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons [servants] of God. (Romans 8:19)

These all point to "sons of God" being used to describe devoted servants of God.

Other statements in the Bible confirm this interpretation:

…the sons [servants] of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:2)

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons [servants] of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

Could Jesus be considered the servant of David?

This, of course, is also consistent with the translation of υἱὸς in context as described above. In various verses, υἱὸς is used in connection with God (υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ), with David (υἱός τοῦ Δαυίδ) and with all of humanity (υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). (τοῦ means "of"). So rather than Jesus being the son of everything:

• the son of David
• the son of God
• the son of man

Jesus actually saw himself (and others saw him) as their loving servant:

• the servant (or devoted follower) of David
• the servant (or devoted follower) of God
• the servant of humanity

In the context of Jesus, we must add that the term υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ may be better translated to "Representative of God." This was also pointed out in Thayer's lexicon, "the Jews called the Messiah o vios tov Oeov pre-eminently, as the supreme representative of God."

Jesus was not simply pretending to be a servant. He sincerely felt that he was a servant of others and God. He took the lowest position. Remember, for example, when Jesus washed his disciples' feet. Jesus was not assuming the position of boss or master. He saw himself as a loving servant of God and humanity. And this is why he said to the blind men: "What do you want me to do for you?"

This means that Jesus is not God. He is the loving servant and representative of God. Like any loving servant, Jesus has a oneness with God because he is doing God's will. This means they are one in will. Thus Jesus spoke words from God. He represented God and did God's will. This means that Jesus was His exalted representative and loving servant.

" 'From the lips of children and infants you, Lord, have called forth your praise'" (Matthew 21:16)

The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant. "Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him. "Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read, " 'From the lips of children and infants you, Lord, have called forth your praise'?" (Matthew 21:16)

Is Jesus referring to one of David's Psalms here?

Let’s read the full context of the Psalm of David that Jesus is referring to in his statement above:

O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is Your Name in all the earth! You have set Your glory above the heavens. From the lips of children and infants You have ordained praise because of Your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honour. You made him ruler over the works of Your hands; You put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is Your Name in all the earth! (Psalms 8)

The key phrase they use to interpret that David is discussing Jesus is:

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him?

Is Psalm 8 about Jesus?

Some have interpreted that Jesus quoted this phrase from Psalm 8 because Jesus was trying to indicate that David's Psalm was prophesying about Jesus.

This is simply a stretch of the imagination. There is no indication from the Psalms or from Jesus that this was about Jesus.

As detailed below, David is referring to himself as the "son of man," just as Daniel and Ezekiel were both referred to as the "son of man." 

Furthermore, the crowds were not praising Jesus as the son of David as has been inappropriately translated from the Greek word υἱός. David was not Jesus' ancestor as has been sometimes acclaimed.

In this context, this Greek word translates to, "one who depends on another or is his follower." Thayer further defines the Greek word as "representative."

In other words, Jesus was a follower of David and the representative of David. This is why he often quoted David's Psalms in his preaching.

In other words, they were proclaiming Jesus to be a teacher within David’s teaching lineage - and the focus of David’s teachings was the praise of God, as he illustrated throughout the Psalms.

Was David referring to himself as the 'son of man'?

Yes. David referred to himself as the "son of man" in these verses. In fact, many other statements in the Bible refer to different people outside of Jesus as "son of man." Consider these verses:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)

"how much less man, who is but a maggot — a son of man, who is only a worm!" (Job 25:6)

He [God] said to me, "son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you." (Ezekiel 2:1)

He [God] said: "son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day. (Exe. 2:3)

(God referred to Ezekiel as the servant of humanity ("son of man") continuously, as evidenced by over 80 verses in Ezekiel).

As He came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "son of man," He said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end." (Daniel 8:17)

So here we can see that Daniel was also referred to as a "son of man" (servant of humanity), as was Ezekiel, Job, and David - and of course, Jesus.

(Note that these are from NIV 1984. In 2011, NIV editors edited out "son of man" from many of these verses. These "son of man" translations still exist in most other Bible versions.)

Is 'son of man' a mistranslation?

In Hebrew, "son of man" is being translated from the phrase, בֶּן־אָדָם - which breaks down into בֵּן (ben) and אָדָם ('adam). The word בֵּן (ben) can mean "son" but also "a member of a guild, order, class" according to the lexicon. And אָדָם ('adam) refers to "man" or "mankind" or humanity."

When translated from the Greek - as spoken by Jesus regarding himself - the phrase is υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. The word υἱὸς means "son" or "devoted follower" or "loving servant" while τοῦ means "of" and ἀνθρώπου means "man" or "mankind" or "humanity."

Thus we find the translation to "son of man" actually has no real meaning - as every male is a son of a man and thus has no reference to prophets such as David, Job, Daniel, and Ezekiel, nor to Jesus - we find the more appropriate translation of both the Hebrew and the Greek phrases to be: "servant of humanity"

As truly these prophets, as well as Jesus, were in a position where they were serving all of humanity by giving others knowledge of the Supreme Being.

And this is the ultimate service to humanity because we are lost without the Supreme Being. Our life has no meaning without our relationship with God.

In other words, Jesus was not the only servant of humanity ("son of man"). A servant of humanity is someone who is sent by God (as in Ezekiel) to save people by bringing them home to God.

The phrase also indicates humility - just as the phrase "civil servant" indicates a government employee who considers himself a servant of the people.

Jesus illustrated his position as a servant to others in his washing the feet of his disciples. He also said specifically:

“Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)

Certainly, Jesus included himself in this instruction, as he considered himself to be υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου - servant of humanity.

The bottom line is that the meaning of David's 8th Psalm was not to predict Jesus' coming as misinterpreted by ecclesiastical sectarian teachers. It was clearly intended to praise God and give thanks to the Supreme Being.

With ‘From the lips of children and infants You have ordained praise" David is saying (and Jesus is referring to this) that God deserves praise from even the children - let alone everyone else.

David is saying that he is in awe of God David is amazed that God would care about even the most humble of men such as himself, relatively insignificant compared to the gigantic universe. David then goes on to discuss man’s position on the earth - that man rules over the flocks and herds and so many other animals. This is confirmed in Genesis:

“Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Genesis 1:26)

Remember that according to these ecclesiastical translations and interpretations, Jesus is being referred to as the “son of David” and the “son of God,” as well as the “son of man.” How is Jesus the “son” of all these at the same time?

Factually, he was the son (physical male offspring) of none of them. Even with regard to David, Jesus' genealogy only established a supposed family tie (although given differently in Matthew and Luke) with Joseph, who was according to the texts, Jesus' adoptive father and not his hereditary father. So if we are to accept that Mary was a virgin or at least Jesus was not Joseph's son, then Jesus could neither be David's physical son - or even great, great.... grandson according to the texts.

God wants us to return to Him. He knows that we will be happy only when we are back in His loving arms. So He calls to us from within our hearts. He sends His loving servants to try to convince us to come home. He calls us from within the scriptures. All of these activities are because loving God is not an empty phrase. Loving God means returning to our loving relationship with our Best Friend and Soul Mate - the Supreme Being. This is the consistent teaching of all the prophets as evidenced by Jesus' and Moses' very clear instruction:

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-38 and Deuteronomy 6:5)