Why Jesus was called “Son of God” (Luke 1:35)

Both Trinitarians and Unitarians have missed a very important distinction in the two titles assigned to Jesus throughout the Gospels, “Son of God” and “Son of Man.” Both groups apply both titles to Jesus’ existence from His birth in Bethlehem alone.

For Trinitarians, “Son of God” is a title that stems from their interpretation of the virgin birth. When the “Holy Spirit” is said to come upon the virgin Mary, she is said to have been with child ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου, literally, “out of holy Spirit/Breath.”[1] For Trinitarians, the title “Son of God” only refers Jesus after the “incarnation,” being the product of God (as Father) and Mary (as mother) in the incarnation.

Trinitarians believe in a “preexistence” of Christ, but they do not refer to Him in His pre-human state by the title “Son of God.” Instead, they use the non-biblical title “God the Son.” This last term was invented only after Trinitarianism arose within Christianity centuries after the Apostles. The title “Son of God” clearly emphasizes a subordinate role and an origin in time when He was “begotten,” and does not portray Him as “God.” But the title was switched around to “God the Son” as a means of first calling Him “God” (making Him equal with the other two members of the alleged Trinity). This helped accommodate the concepts of a co-equality and being co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit found in later Trinitarianism. For Trinitarians, Jesus is primarily “God” (equal to the Father in every way) and then only distinguished from the Father by the secondary title “Son.” However, “Son of God” is the only one of these which is biblical.

The problems with the Trinitarian view should be apparent.

1. If Jesus is a “Son” and God is a “Father,” regardless of how one switches the terms around, a “son” is always in the inferior and subordinate role to a “father.” So how could they be co-equal at any time, either before or after the “incarnation?” In human language, a father always outranks his son because the son’s origin and very existence comes from his father, and a son is commanded to obey his father. The term “Son” in itself requires an origin out of the “Father.” Yet Trinitarians cannot allow for the “Son” to have any origin or beginning of existence at all since this is not compatible with the co-equal and co-eternal concept.

2. If the “Holy Spirit” is a third Person of the Trinity, why did Jesus not call Him “Father” instead of “God the Father,” if in fact the Spirit was a third personage apart from Jesus, who impregnated Mary? Since Scripture reveals much about God and Jesus using terms which describe both origin and familial relationships, why is not the “Holy Spirit” given a familial title that describes His relationship to either “God the Father” of “God the Son?” Why is not Jesus the Son of the Holy Spirit since in Trinitarianism the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary?

Unitarians, who deny any pre-human existence for the Son, do not use the term “God the Son” since it is unbiblical. However, they use the terms “Son of God” and “Son of Man” interchangeably as though there is no distinction in meaning. For them, the term “Son of God” refers to adoption by God only and does not indicate that God actually fathered Jesus. If God literally fathered (begat) Jesus, then Jesus would have to be of the God “kind” since procreation is always according to kind and the various “kinds” cannot cross procreate. This concept is expounded clearly in the first chapter of Genesis, and it is without exception in observed nature. Since Unitarians claim that Jesus was human only, with no divine ontological nature or characteristics, He cannot be God’s “begotten” Son. If pinned down, Unitarians who deny a pre-human existence will admit that they do not believe that Jesus is literally the “Son of God” or that He was literally “the only-begotten of the Father” using the normal and literal definitions of these terms. While Biblical Unitarians use the language of procreation that the Bible uses, what they really mean is that Jesus was a creation of God, just as Adam was a creation of God. For them, Jesus is God’s “Son” only by election and adoption, not by actual procreation (begetting) from the Father.

As their proof-text to support this interpretation of the title “Son of God” they frequently appeal to the following verse.

Luke 1:35 (NASB) And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.”

From this verse the conclusion is drawn that Jesus was to be called “Son of God” only because of the creative miracle of the virgin birth and not because God literally “fathered” (begat) Jesus along with Mary.

Yet, equally difficult problems emerge with the Biblical Unitarian interpretation.

1. If Jesus became “Son of God” because God chose Him from among mankind and adopted Him as His Son, why was He the only virgin-born human being? His completely unique origin, which God allegedly created as a special miracle, His predetermined ancestry through Abraham, Judah, and David means Jesus was one of a kind, and these things necessarily predetermined His role as the Messiah. So where is the “electing” or “choosing” in that? It was predetermined long before His birth.

2. If Jesus was only “Son of God” by election and adoption, why does Scripture use “begetting” (procreation) terminology for His existence from God rather than creation terminology? Psalm 2:7-8 states that the Son said the following: “I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession.” Jesus is the Son of God by procreation out of God, not merely by adoption. Jesus is said also to be “the only-begotten of the Father,”[2] “the only-begotten Son,”[3] “the only-begotten Son of God,”[4] and “His only-begotten Son.”[5] Jesus said, “If God was your Father, you were loving Me, for I issued forth out of God,[6] and am come.”[7] If language means anything, such terminology means that He was literally “begotten” out of God, not created as a unique man.

Neither Trinitarians nor Unitarians are employing sound principles of exegesis of Scripture. Both are forcing the Scriptures into their predetermined theology rather than allowing the plain sense to dictate their theology. Both systems ignore the normal meaning of words, and both misinterpret Luke 1:35, and both ignore the understanding of Luke 1:35 that was held by the earliest Christians and the grammatical and syntactical reason for it.

Here is how Luke 1:35 reads in a literal translation from the Greek. 

Luke 1:35 (LGV) 35 And the messenger answering said to her, “A holy Breath will come over you, and a Power of the Highest will envelop you, by which even the holy Thing which is begotten will be called ‘Son of God’.”

Here is how the earliest Christians understood this verse, especially what was meant by a “Power of the Highest” and a “holy Breath” which came upon Mary. It was neither an alleged third Person of a Trinity, nor was it an extension of the Father. It was “Logos” (the Word), who was already the begotten Son of God, both “a Breath” and “a Power” of God, who came upon Mary for the purpose of entering her womb and becoming flesh. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) wrote concerning this verse: “It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the Power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God.”[8] Theophilus of Antioch (AD ?-185) wrote: “but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His Power and His Wisdom, …”[9] Tertullian of Carthage (AD 155-220) wrote: “Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God descended into a woman’s womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb.”[10] Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235) wrote: “Who, then, was in heaven but the Word unincarnate [lit. without flesh], who was dispatched to show that He was upon earth and was also in heaven? For He was Word, He was Spirit, He was Power. … Rightly, then, did he say that He who was in heaven was called from the beginning by this name, the Word of God, as being that from the beginning.”[11] Lactantius (AD 250-325) wrote: “Therefore the Holy Spirit of God, descending from heaven, chose the holy Virgin, that He might enter into her womb. But she, being filled by the possession of the Divine Spirit, conceived; and without any intercourse with a man, her virgin womb was suddenly impregned.”[12]

These earliest Christian writers did not interpret Luke 1:35 as referring to a third Person of the Trinity called “the Holy Spirit” creating a human sperm or a fetus in Mary’s womb (as in Trinitarianism). Neither did they suppose that a “holy Spirit/Breath” and a “Power of the Highest” referred to a limited manifestation of God the Father (as in Biblical Unitarianism). Rather, they all understood “a holy Spirit/Breath” and “a Power of the Highest” which came upon Mary to be the same one called “Logos” (Word) who was already begotten as “the Son of God,” having been formerly begotten out of God as “the Beginning.” He is the one who came upon Mary and entered into her womb in order to become flesh, already being the begotten out of God. He was “Word/Wisdom,” (being both “holy Spirit/Breath” and “Power of God”). The fact that He had no human father, that Mary would give birth without first being married, was going to severely tarnish her reputation as a godly woman. So Gabriel informed her that He was going to be publicly and commonly called “the Son of God” because His real origin, having been begotten out of God Himself (Psalm 2:7) would become known. That is, this Jesus would become known as the “begotten” Son of God and Wisdom who was “begotten” of God (Prov. 8:22-25).

The interpretation of this verse by the earliest Christian writers may certainly seem strange and new to both Trinitarians and Unitarians. However, there is very good reason why the earliest writers who understood the Greek well had this interpretation of Luke 1:35. There is an important clause in this verse – τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον. It is literally and correctly translated: “the holy [currently] begotten Thing.” Here is how it is incorrectly or incompletely rendered in several common translations: “that holy thing which shall be born” (KJV); “that Holy One who is to be born” (NKJV); “the holy offspring” (NASB); “the holy one to be born” (NIV); “the child to be born” (ESV); “the Holy which shall be born” (Douay-Rheims); “the baby to be born will be holy” (NLT); “the child to be born will be holy” (NRSV); “the holy-begotten thing” (Youngs Literal Translation).

The word γεννώμενον is the present, passive, neuter, singular participle form of the verb which means “beget.” This is the only place it occurs in either the New Testament or the Septuagint. Of the translations of Luke 1:35 listed above, the NASB and Youngs Literal Translation render it incompletely because they leave out the time relationship (present tense) of the participle. The others do include a time relationship, but it is the wrong one, placing the “begetting” in the future. This is done either by using a future tense verb “will/shall be born” or turning the participle into an infinitive “to be born” (which also implies a future event). However, Luke recorded that Gabriel said τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον, literally “the holy [currently] begotten Thing.” The participle with the definite article (not modifying another noun or verb) is a substantive (acts like a noun). But by using the participle form rather than a noun or adjective adds the verbal aspect of tense (present time). This means that the entity being referenced already existed as “the holy begotten Thing” at the time Gabriel said these words to Mary. (The word “thing” comes from the fact that the participle is neuter not masculine). If Gabriel meant to refer to Jesus’ birth from Mary by this statement he could easily have stated, “the holy one who will be begotten” (using a future tense verb), or he could have used the present infinitive “the holy one who is to be begotten.” Either of these would indicate that the procreation indicated (begotten) was still future rather than a present reality. Or, he could have used the substantive adjective “the begotten Thing” without specifying any time relationships, leaving the context to make the determination concerning time. However, the use of the articular present participle requires that the entity referred to as “that holy Thing” already existed as “begotten” at the time Gabriel made this announcement to Mary before she even agreed to become the mother of the Messiah. Notice also the use of the neuter gender “Thing.” Gabriel had already told her that she would bring forth a Son, so one would expect the masculine gender to be used. We could speculate as to why the Son of God is referenced in the neuter gender, but the reader should at least be aware that in Greek the neuter is used sometimes when the referent(s) can be described as both masculine and feminine. Perhaps since the terms “Word” (masculine) and “Wisdom” (feminine) are used of the one God “begat” (Ps. 2:7; Prov. 8:22-25), the use of the neuter is appropriate in referring to the one already “begotten.”

Again, to stress the critical point: The participle (used as a substantive {like a noun – person, place, or thing}) by its tense stresses independent time, relative only to the time of Gabriel’s announcement. The use of the present tense here places the verbal concept of “begotten” as already being a reality in the present before Mary became pregnant. The “Son” whom Mary would “bring forth” was already “begotten.” Luke says that it was for this reason that He would be called “Son of God.” He was already “the only-begotten of the Father”[13] before Mary became pregnant.

This begs the question: Why did Gabriel speak of the Son of God as already being “the holy begotten Thing” before Mary conceived? The answer is obvious from Isaiah 9:6 which Gabriel was referencing, but only clearly in the Septuagint. “ὅτι παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν υἱὸς καὶ ἐδόθη ἡμῖν,” literally: “Because an offspring was begotten for us, a son was given for us.” Note that παιδίον (offspring) is neuter in Greek and English, and “the holy Begotten Thing” in Luke 1:35 is neuter. Note also that both verbs (underlined) are aorist indicative in Greek, requiring simple past tense in our English translation. Thus the “Son” was already “begotten” and “given” to Israel before Isaiah’s time. The Septuagint then gives His name: τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος, lit. “The name of Him — Angel/Messenger of Great Counsel.” This is a reference to the “Mesenger of Yahweh” who appeared in the burning bush and led Israel out of Egypt to the Promised Land (See also Mal. 3:1 where Jesus is called the “Angel/Messenger of the Covenant”).

The earliest Christians used the Septuagint as their Bible, and they accurately read and understood the nuances of the Greek text. This is the major reason that they identified “the holy [already] begotten Thing” as the Word and Wisdom. They read the Greek of Isaiah and Luke as it stands without trying to impose either Trinitarian or Unitarian presuppositions onto the text.

As a comparison of this verse in many different translations shows, the translators struggled to convey the full meaning because it was hard to mesh Luke’s precise language with their theological systems. But it meshes quite well with the theological system conveyed by the earliest Christian writers. The following quote from Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202), disciple of Polycarp (disciple of John), is typical of the earliest writers.

“He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that might receive the adoption of sons? For this reason [it is, said], ‘Who shall declare His generation?[14]’ since ‘He is a man, and who shall recognize Him?’[15] But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him,[16] knows Him, so that he understands that He who ‘was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man’[17] is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God.” … “Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him:” … “He therefore, the Son of God, our Lord, being the Word of the Father, and the Son of man, since He had a generation as to His human nature from Mary — who was descended from mankind, and who was herself a human being — was made the Son of man. [18]

This was the consistent view of the earliest Christians. The “Son of God” was begotten out of God first. He only later became the “Son of Man” when He was begotten again out of Mary.

Finally, it is important to consider a variant reading which appears only in the Textus Receptus, the base text of the KJV. While the oldest and vast majority of manuscripts of Luke read τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον, the Textus Receptus has τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον, adding ἐκ σοῦ (“out of you”): “the holy thing which is begotten out of you.” This variant reading has the effect of implying that the begetting indicated by the present participle is from Mary rather than the previous procreation out of God. The KJV reading is clearly a late addition to the text meant to confirm the Trinitarian interpretation. Even the NKJV, which normally follows the same Textus Receptus, does not follow the TR in this instance because there is no early evidence of that reading.

The correct and full rendering of Luke 1:35 supports two distinct begetting events, the first out of God as being of the God “kind” (thus “Son of God”) and the later of the human “kind” out of Mary. The “Son of God” afterwards became “Son of Man” just as the earliest Christians closest to the Apostles clearly stated.

A careful reading of the New Testament will show that the term “Son of God” and “Son of Man” point to two different origins. The title “Son of God” implies His real origin as having been procreated out of God previously as described in Psalm 2, and what Paul called “the first-produced of all creation.” The term “Son of Man” always refers to His humanity having been procreated as a human out of the virgin Mary. Whenever Jesus called God His “Father” it was always in reference to His pre-human procreation and never to His human birth. For example, in Jesus’ prayer in John 17:5, Jesus said: “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

While the writers of the early books of the New Testament may not have had a mature understanding of the full significance of the title “Son of God” while writing their Gospels,[19] the holy Breath of God which guided their pens caused them to embed these teachings in the New Testament.[20] The full significance of the Mystery was gradually revealed through Paul, and then reinforced by John. Reading the New Testament through this lens like the earliest Christians did, instead of through either Trinitarian or Unitarian presuppositions and biases, will add depth to your Bible study that is not possible when the two terms are used synonymously as in both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism.

Go to: The Many Expeditions of the Son of God (Micah 5:2)

---

[1] Matt. 1:18

[2] John 1:14

[3] John 1:18; John 3:16

[4] John 3:18

[5] 1 John 4:9

[6] ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον (John 8:48 LGV)

[7] (LGV) https://4windsfellowships.net/LGV/LGV_John.pdf

[8] Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. xxxiii

[9] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Bk. II, ch. xxii

[10] Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, XIX

[11] Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch. iv

[12] Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Bk. IV, ch. xii

[13] John 1:14

[14] Isa. 53:8

[15] Jer. 17:9

[16] Matt. 16:15-17

[17] Note the quotation of John 1:13 using the singular (referring to Logos) rather than the plural (referring to Christians).

[18] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. III, ch. xix

[19] Matt. 16:16-17

[20] The situation was the same with the prophets (1 Pet. 1:10-12).