Christian Churches of God

No. 211





The Significance of the Term Son of God

(Edition 2.0 19970813-20140914)

This paper is an explanation of the term Son of God as it is used in the Bible and as it was understood by the Jews and the early church.




Christian Churches of God

PO Box 369,  WODEN  ACT 2606,  AUSTRALIA




(Copyright ã Based on a 1997 text written by Dave Bedwell and edited Wade Cox)

(Revised by Wade Cox 2014)


This paper may be freely copied and distributed provided it is copied in total with no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s name and address and the copyright notice must be included.  No charge may be levied on recipients of distributed copies.  Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews without breaching copyright.


his paper is available from the World Wide Web page: and



The Significance of the Term Son of God


The title Son of God is given, by those who claim to be his followers, to the man born in the reign of Herod king of Judea in the first century BCE. Herod died between 1 and 13 Nisan in the year 4 BCE. The man was a Jew by birth and was born in Bethlehem into the clan of David king of Israel. His mother was named Miriam (cf. Lk. 1:27-56 called Mariam SGD 3137) in the Hellenised world. Her sister, wife of Cleophas, was named Maria which is simply another version of this name. She married Joseph of the lineage of David through Solomon and Jeconiah (see Mat. 1:7-17). She was herself of the lineage of David through Nathan and was related by blood to the Levitical tribe through Elizabeth her cousin who was wife of the high priest of the division of Abijah (see the paper Genealogy of the Messiah (No. 119)). She fell pregnant before she married Joseph and he was going to put her away. Through miraculous intervention, he did not do so and a child was born to her who was named Yahoshua (SHD 3091 Yehowshu'a, now pronounced Joshua through the shortening of the ah sound and the incorrect application of the letter J to Hebrew). It means Yahovah has saved. It is the same name as that given to the Yahoshua or Joshua son of Nun the leader of Israel on the death of Moses. It was written by the Greeks as 'Iesou (SGD 2424; cf. Lk. 3:29; Heb. 4:8). This version is due to the linguistic limitations in pronouncing the Hebrew letter Y and the proclivity to shorten names from New Testament times. [ed.]


At the time Yahoshua came, the Jewish people were in earnest expectation of a prophesied Messiah. Yet many in the churches of the world have misunderstood who the Jews were expecting. Let’s see who the Jews thought Messiah would be. They knew he would be of the house of David and specifically in Bethlehem Ephrathah. He would also be born of a virgin but they misunderstood this fact. Also his name was misunderstood.

Micah 5:2  But thou, Bethlehem Epratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (KJV)

See the paper Micah 5:2-3 (No. 121).


Isaiah 7:13-14 Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?  "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (NAS)

[Immanuel means literally with us is God. This aspect of prophecy was given to Isaiah so that it was seen to extend beyond the times of Ahaz as we see from Isaiah 8:8 and would involve the captivity of the land of Immanuel.]


Isaiah 9:6-7 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.  There will be no end to the increase of {His} government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. (NAS)


Isaiah 11:1-4 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.  And the Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.  And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, and He will not judge by what His eyes see, nor make a decision by what His ears hear; But with righteousness He will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. (NAS)


Jeremiah 23:5-6  "Behold, {the} days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land.  "In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, ‘The LORD our righteousness.’ (NAS)


So it is no surprise that when Yahoshua asked them whose son the Messiah was (Mat. 22:41-42), they would respond that he was the son of David. But notice that Messiah goes on to explain to them something they didn’t understand before:

Matthew 22:43-45 He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, until I put Thine enemies beneath Thy feet?"' "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?" (NAS)


Notice their response:

Matthew 22:46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question. (NAS)


The Jews had no idea that Messiah would be of divine origin. Yet, how can that be from the above mentioned Scriptures (Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-4; Jer. 23:5-6)? The simple answer is the Jews didn’t understand these Scriptures.


Look at what the Soncino says about Isaiah 7:14 with regard to the phrase a virgin:

the young woman.  Hebrew ha’almah means an adolescent woman, one of marriageable age.  The contention that the word must necessarily connote ‘virgin’ is unwarranted.  The Hebrew for ‘virgin’ is bethulah, though almah too sometimes bears this meaning.  It is difficult to say with certainty who was the young woman referred to.  Chronological consideration excludes the mother of Hezekiah (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Kimchi); and the fact that the birth (or the name) was to serve as a sign to convince Ahaz of the certain fulfillment of the prophecy rules out the Christological interpretation (emphasis added throughout) ... The wife of Isaiah (Rashi, Ibn Ezra), a wife of Ahaz (Kimchi) or a woman of the Royal Family (Arbarbanel) may have been the young woman of the text (Isaiah, Soncino Press, New York, p. 35).


Likewise, the passage of Isaiah 9:5-6 with regard to the phrases:

a child: “a contemporary person is intended.  The Talmud and later Jewish commentators understood the allusion to be the son of Ahaz, viz. Hezekiah.


The government is upon his shoulder: “unlike his father who was a vassal of the king of Assyria.”


pele-joaz, etc.:  The meaning of the Hebrew words is ‘Wonderful in Counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, The Ruler of Peace.’  The child will bear these names in order to recall to the people the message which they embodied (ibid., p. 44)


The LXX renders the translation of Isaiah 9:6 as Angel of Great Counsel. This was understood in physical terms as a human messenger. The LXX was repudiated by the rabbinical sect who took over from the Pharisees after the dispersion from the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.


Thus it is clear that the Jews rightly understood that the Messiah was one to be the son of man born of woman as a son of David, but completely misunderstood the biblical position that he would also be the son of God by divine origin.


Messiah clearly identifies himself as such to the people of his day, and people rightly called him the son of God. The issue becomes confusing when we consider the contemporary use of the phrase. In the modern era, people routinely refer to mankind as the sons or daughters of God, i.e. the children of God. However, most contemporary people have misunderstood the Jewish interpretation of what the phrase the son of God meant in the first century. We will see that it meant something altogether different than what is understood today.

Matthew 16:14-17 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."  And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (NAS)


One might wonder why this was such marvellous revelation because, surely, Messiah told them who he was and about how he was born of a virgin etc. So why would this "you are the Christ, the son of the Living God" be a strange revelation?


To understand why this was an astounding revelation by Peter of his understanding of who the man Yahoshua was we must go to the Old Testament to see how the term is used. This was the background from which they were coming. They didn’t have the New Testament written with its common reference to the elect as the sons of God. The Church of God in the twentieth century has always interpreted this phrase, especially as used in the New Testament, in reference to the elect. But let’s look at it again and how it’s used in the historical context of Jews in the first century.

Daniel 3:25  He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. (KJV)


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


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


Thus from the above Scriptures in Job we can see that HaSatan or the adversary, Satan the Devil, is counted along with the sons of God.

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


Psalm 29:1 Ascribe to the LORD, O sons of the mighty [bene elim - i.e. sons of God], ascribe to the LORD glory and strength. (NAS)


Psalm 89:6 For who in the skies is comparable to the LORD? Who among the sons of the mighty [bene elim - i.e. sons of God] is like the LORD, (NAS)

[The Lord here is Yahovah. The concept appears to be that Messiah is the Yahovah referred to here. See ISBE ref. below. ed.]


Thus from the Old Testament, it can be seen from the above references that the historical paradigm of first century people was that the phrase son of God was used in reference to the heavenly Host.


There are two Scriptures which reference the son of God and are somewhat controversial as to whether the reference is to humans or to the Host. The first one is Genesis 6:2-4 – the much debated Nephilim account. Jamieson, Faucette and Brown Commentary makes reference to the last verse in Genesis 4 “and people began to call upon the name of the Lord” and say that it should be translated “and people began to call themselves by the name of the Lord.” Thus their interpretation is that sons of God in Genesis 6:2-4 should refer to the sons of Cain who took for themselves the name of God. However, do the Jews now or of the first century hold this view? Josephus, a first century historian (b. 29 CE, d. circa 100 CE) records:

Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard for virtue, for seven generations; but in the process of time, they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers, and did neither pay those honors to any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shewn for virtue, they now shewed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy; for many angels* of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength, for the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call Giants. (*Footnote: This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the constant view of antiquity.) (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. 1, Ch. 3, Sect. 1– Whiston tr.).


As can be seen from Josephus who was a Pharisee of the first century, the Jews believed that Genesis 6:2-4 was a reference to the demonic Host. Whether or not Genesis 6:2-4 is actually a reference to humans of the line of Seth or the demonic Host is irrelevant. The Jews of the first century clearly identified the term sons of God with the angelic Host. [The idea that the sons of God refers to the lineage of Seth comes from Augustine of Hippo in The City of God c. 400 CE. It is not a Hebrew concept. ed.]


The other text is Hosea 1:10 where the sons of God can refer to human beings.

Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; and it will come about that, in the place where it is said to them, "You are not My people," it will be said to them, "you are the sons of the living God." (NAS)


Now this can be a reference to human beings, but it is a prophecy of the sons of Israel being gathered together and given the Holy Spirit of God in the Millennium. As recipients of the Holy Spirit, they are begotten sons who will be born into the Kingdom of Heaven upon their resurrection. Thus it is a dual prophecy. The sons of Israel will be drawn back to their homeland to be God’s people. They will be given the Holy Spirit enabling them to be called the sons of God, as are we, because that is their destiny, like it is ours, to be the very sons of God. This is the prophecy which enabled the apostles Paul and John to declare so vibrantly that we are now the sons of God. Not because we have now experienced the resurrection as literal sons, but that is the promise of God and the Scripture cannot be broken. Thus in the resurrection the other aspect of this will be fulfilled. The sons of Israel will be the very sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Luke 20:35‑36 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; for neither can they die anymore, for they are as the angels, the sons of God, being the sons of the resurrection. (NAS)


The term equal to angels is from the Greek isaggelos which is a compound word derived from isos meaning equal, in quantity or quality (emphasis added throughout) and aggelos meaning angel. The meaning is that Christians in the resurrection will be ranked as sons of God – this being one of the classes of the heavenly [Host] (see the paper The Angel of YHVH (No. 24), Appendix 1).


Look at what this is saying. Whenever the phrase son[s] of God is used, it is used exclusively for the Host. We are then grafted into the family of God through the adoption as Paul spoke about through the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. The twentieth century Church has limited Luke 20:35-36 as being in reference to being sexless or without gender. But that is not what this Scripture says. It doesn’t say that upon resurrection people who have been either male or female will now be gender-less. It does, however, say we will be as the angels, being the sons of God. The clear implication of this is based on the continuation of every reference in the Old Testament to sons of God in reference to the Host meaning that we will be a part of the heavenly Host as sons of God.

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


Thus peacemakers are not now sons of God, but have that as their ultimate destiny as they shall be called the sons of God. Therefore, look at what is being said between the Scribes, Pharisees and Priests and Messiah during his ministry.

Matthew 26:63-65 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy." (NAS)


Why would it be blasphemy to say you were the son of God? Notice:

John 10:24-38 The Jews therefore gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods’? “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (NAS)


It is obvious that the phrase son of God meant more to them than just one of Adam’s children (Lk. 3:38). It meant that he had proceeded from the heavens as one of the Host. When Yahoshua claimed the title of the son of God this constituted blasphemy to them. In their opinion, when he said this, he made himself out to equal with the YHVH elohim of their fathers whom they knew was:

‘The angel of the covenant; i.e. God in a representative character, i.e. ‘Israel’s Covenant- God’ (Barnes).  Rashi and Ehrlich interpret: the angel appointed to avenge the breaking of any covenant (The Twelve Prophets, Soncino Press, p. 349).


Thus we can see that the Jews would have interpreted his statement as meaning he was one of the heavenly Host, and that’s why they wanted to stone him. He was making himself out to be the YHVH elohim of Israel which, of course, he was. Thus, in the mind of the Jews he, being a man, made himself out to be [a] God as the Jews understood the term, that is, as the angel of the presence. This Great Angel was Israel’s second elohim. This constituted rank heresy and blasphemy to those who did not understand the prophecies of his coming.

John 3:18  "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God [monogenous uios tou Theou or the only born son of the God]. (NAS)


John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God." (NAS)


Included in this title son of God is more than just what we read at a glancing pass. It means that he was one of the Host coming down from heaven to be incarnated. And then this great being did nothing to free them from slavery to the Romans, but told them to repent which would free them from greater enslavement than that of the Romans, namely, death. This was like salt in the wound for the Jewish leaders, and they killed him for it. They refused to repent even though a greater prophet was sent to them than any of the other nations. That is why the children of Sodom and Nineveh will rise in judgment over the first century generation of Jews (Mat. 11:20-24; 12:41).


But those who heard his words and witnessed his deeds knew he was the son of God. They took his admonition to judge him on the works which he did, which the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees rejected (Jn. 10:38).


John 11:27 She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God who comes into the world." (NAS)

We can see here that she recognises him as the son of God, i.e. the angelic being who comes into the world. The focus is on the son who comes into the world. This is supported by:

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, [to be] born of a woman, born under the Law. (NAS)


The grammatical construction here is that Yahoshua was God’s son prior to his incarnation, and God sent him to be born of a woman. When a man has a child he would not say “I have sent forth my child.” Yet, this is how many interpret this text. Clearly, Yahoshua was the son of God prior to his human birth and was sent by God to be the only born god (Jn. 1:18; cf. Marshall’s Interlinear text and Syriac).


In conclusion, here is what The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1988 edition under the article "Sons of God (OT)", Volume IV, page 584 has to say on the meaning of the term sons of God:

SONS OF GOD (OT) [Heb. bene (ha) elohim, bene elim] Divine beings. Just as "sons of man" means human beings in Hebrew, so "sons of God" means divine beings, i.e., gods. In Canaanite religion and myth, the term "sons of God" or "sons of the gods" referred to the gods in general. They were the deities of the pantheon who convened to render decisions regarding the governance of the world. Ugaritic mythological texts, e.g., call this divine council the assembly of the sons of god" (or "of 'El," the chief god). The survival of this idea in Canaanite tradition is illustrated by a reference to "all the sons of the gods" in a Phoenician incantation of the 7th cent. BC found at Arslan Tash in northern Syria.

The same usage occurs, at least vestigially, in certain passages in the Hebrew Bible. Dt. 32:8 says that "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bound of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God" (so RSV, NEB; the MT erroneously has "sons of Israel" [bene yishra'el], but the versions [e.g. LXX, Symm., Old Latin] and a scroll from Qumran support the reading "sons of God" [bene elim]).


The sons of god appear in other poetic passages, all of which have an archaic character. Job 38:7, e.g., identifies them with "the morning stars" and recalls that they shouted their acclamation at Yahweh's creation of the earth. Ps. 29:1 calls upon the "sons of God" (Heb. bene elim; RSV "heavenly beings") to praise Yahweh. Ps. 82:1 describes Yahweh as rising in the midst of the gods ‑ i.e., "in the divine council" (lit. "council of 'El") ‑ to pass judgment on the other gods. Verses 6f. say, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men." Ps. 89:6 (MT 7) is an assertion of Yahweh's incomparability: "Who among the heavenly beings [bene elim] is like the Lord ..." (cf. Ex. 15:11). Again, the original intent of these passages may have been to present Yahweh as one deity (albeit the greatest and the only just deity) alongside others in the divine council. But the passages were preserved because they can be understood in the light of the general biblical idea of a council of subordinate divine beings ("messengers" or angels") ruled by Yahweh (on Ps. 82 see esp. G. E. Wright, OT Against its Environment [SBT, 1/2; 1950], pp. 30‑41).


The prologue to Job reflects this more usual biblical notion of subordinate divine beings. Job 1:6 and 2:1 refer to "a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord." In this case the sons of God are angelic beings who carry out Yahweh's will on earth and report to Him in His heavenly council. The relatively independent figure of "the adversary" (haSatan, RSV "Satan") in this context anticipates later developments in the Judeo-Christian tradition according to which SATAN or Lucifer and his fellow angels were viewed as having sufficient autonomy to rebel against God.


This has a very clear implication and significance to what Messiah achieved through becoming human. Notice his contrast to Satan who tried to achieve equality with God by force:

Isaiah 14:12-14 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have weakened the nations! "But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' (NAS)


And here is what Messiah did:

Philippians 2:6-9 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped [or seized by force], but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men  And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, (NAS)


Thus we have a comparison between two sons of God as noted in Job. One, HaSatan, the adversary, tried to exalt himself over his brethren the angels and tried to seize an exalted title by force; the other, Yahoshua the Messiah, humbled himself and became a slave and offering, and then God exalted him for what he achieved through submission and obedience.


As we have seen, the title the Son of God refers to the heavenly Host, especially as viewed by the first century Jews. It applies to us as we have received the spirit of adoption (because we weren’t created as the Host and so had to be grafted in; this is the same manner in which the Gentiles were grafted into Israel). In Yahoshua saying he was the Son of God, to the Jews he was heard and understood to be saying “I am your YHVH elohim, son of YHVH of Hosts incarnated into flesh.” The only place the Jews had ever heard the term sons of God was in reference to the heavenly Host, therefore, they interpreted him to be saying just that in effect. Such was the reason for their animosity. How else would the term son of God be offensive? They could just as easily look into the Scriptures and see that they are called elohim to whom the word of God came, but the phrase son of God had the direct correlation to the heavenly Host. This is why it was so offensive to the Jews. Because Yahoshua was not only saying he was the Messiah, son of David, but by using the phrase son of God he was saying: “I’m one of the heavenly Host incarnated into flesh.” This being was the elohim that was known as the Angel of Yahovah at the head of the household of Israel (Zech. 12:8).


Misapplication of the Term:  The Son of God

This aspect deals with the position of the Christ as an elohim. The ministry of the WCG offshoots simply do not realise the implications because of their Ditheist errors under Armstrongism.


We of the Churches of God have long been aware that the Trinitarians and the Binitarian predecessors that came into the faith from the worshippers of the Sun and Mystery Cults, and especially from the worshippers of the god Attis at Rome, have mistranslated the sections of the Bible texts that suited them in an effort to promote their heretical theology. The Ditheists of Armstrongism played along with this through their ignorance.


Nowhere is this more evident than in John 10:33-36.


John 10:33-36 (King James Version KJV) says:

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


In order to assert that Christ is God and disguise the fact that he is an elohim and not The Elohim or Ha Elohim of Scripture, in verse 33 they translate the last phrase as: makest thyself God, when the Greek says: makest thyself a god, thereby concurring with the verses 34-35. There is no definite article here in the Koine accusative case.


Then in verse 36 they translate the last phrase as: I am the Son of God, when the Greek has no definite article and must be held to read: a son of The God I am (uios tou theou eimi), therefore confirming that Christ is one of the elohim as sons of God. There is no definite article in the text except in relation to tou theou or The God, and thus the indefinite article must be inferred in relation to Christ as a son of God. The text also is quoting the Psalms and it is beyond dispute that the psalm refers to the elohim as sons of God (Ps. 82:6). Also here the Psalms are included in the law but in Luke 24:44 the usual distinction of the Law the Prophets and the Psalms is used. This gives more emphasis to the Scriptures all being part of the Law of God rather than the emphasis on Torah alone.


These false translations of the Trinitarians appear endlessly in the texts translated from both Hebrew and Greek. The Armstrongite ministry is unequipped to deal with them because of the Ditheism of a large part of the WCG ministry (see the paper Ditheism (No. 076)). These errors carried on to the crisis that destroyed the WCG as explained in the New Moon Message of the Sixth month.


The text in Daniel 3:25 (KJV) states He answered and said: “Lo I see four men and one is like the son of God.” This is a blatant Trinitarian forgery as there is no definite article and the indefinite article is required meaning a son of God and Bullinger makes that note in his fn. to the text in the Companion Bible. He says it refers to a superhuman being or Angel. The disguising of the fact that there were many sons of God is endemic throughout the KJV of the Masoretic Text. The texts in Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:4-7 cannot however be disguised and show that the sons of God (later termed messengers as  malak or ‘angellos and hence “angels”) were all going before the Throne of God during the Time of Job including Satan and also that they were ordered to be present when God created the earth including the Morning Stars who were multiple.


Other examples of these mistranslations or just plain forgeries are seen in the following texts:


Matthew 4:3,6 has no definite article. The indefinite article must be inferred and should read: If a Son of God you are” etc. and the same structure is found in verse 6 and thus it can only be translated: “if a son of God you are” etc.


So also in Matthew 14:33 the text has no definite article and must be translated: “Truly of God a son thou art.”


And also Matthew 27:40,43,54. In each of these verses there is no definite article and the indefinite article must be inferred under the rules of Greek; verse 40 reads if a son of God thou are; verse 43 reads He said of God I am a son also lacking the definite article; as is the case with verse 54 also where the centurion said Truly of God a son was this man.


Mark 1:1 inserts the words The Son of God when the ancient manuscripts omit this entire text. Mark 15:39 also requires the indefinite article as Truly this man a son of God was.


Luke 1:35 also lacks the definite article and must be rendered a son of God. Luke 4:3,9 also lack the definite article and must be translated if a son of God you are in both cases.


Luke 8:28 also lacks the definite article and must be rendered as a son of God Most High.


John 10:36, as discussed above, and 19:7 also have no definite article and should read: because a son of God he made himself.


Romans 1:4 also has no definite article and uses tou uion of Him. Now if tou uion is inferred to read the son in the Koine Greek then it must also follow that Ton Theon or tou Theou in the Koine must be translated The God. They cannot have it both ways and theos alone in referring to the Messiah or Satan (2Cor. 4:4) must read a god except in the texts where it is qualified such as where Satan is referred to as the god of this world. The definite article being conditioned by the place i.e. of this world or the subordinate being such as referring to Christ as the Elohim of David (Pss. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:8-9) or of Thomas in John 20:28.


In each case, in the English following the inserted definite article absent in the Greek, son has been capitalized.


Trinitarians mistranslate Hebrews 1:2 in the KJV using his Son when the Greek text says a son. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.


However, in Hebrews 5:8 they correctly use the indefinite article before son, and then capitalize son: Though he were a Son.


This is just more evidence of Trinitarian forgeries in the KJV texts.


Let us now examine the following texts and the implications, and why Ditheists and Binitarians don’t quote this verse. We know why Trinitarians don’t quote it because it destroys their case and that is the real reason why Armstrongism and the offshoots of WCG and COG (SD) don’t quote it either.


Isaiah 45:11 (RSV) states "thus says the Lord THE HOLY ONE of Israel, and HIS MAKER:.... .


The text is quite encompassing in what Christ is saying on behalf of the Lord of Hosts.


Further, it is clear that Christ is being identified as the Holy One of Israel and the Lord of Hosts is identified as his Maker and Creator of the Earth and mankind and the Hosts of Heaven and also commander of the Hosts of Heaven.


God says here that He aroused him, (that is Yahovah of Israel or Christ) in Righteousness.


Isaiah 45:9-13 "Woe to him who strives with his Maker, an earthen vessel with the potter! Does the clay say to him who fashions it, `What are you making'? or `Your work has no handles'? 10Woe to him who says to a father, `What are you begetting?' or to a woman, `With what are you in travail?'" 11Thus says the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: "Will you question me about my children, or command me concerning the work of my hands? 12I made the earth, and created man upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. 13I have aroused him in righteousness, and I will make straight all his ways; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward," says the LORD of hosts.


From Acts 2:25-35, Peter quoting Psalm 16:8-11 in 2:25-28 makes it clear that Christ is the Holy One of God who wasn’t abandoned in Sheol or the grave to see corruption; that is the decay of the body.


Acts 2:25-28 For David says concerning him, `I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; 26therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will dwell in hope. 27For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades (Sheol), nor let thy Holy One see corruption. 28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.'


So also in Acts 13:35:

Acts 13:35 Therefore he says also in another psalm,`Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.'


The text in Psalm 16:2 has had the last word translated as Lord changed by the Sopherim from Yahovah to Adonai as with the other 133 places where it was changed and which are listed by Bullinger (Comp. Bible, Ap. 32).


If the Holy One of Israel has a maker then logically he was created and not co-equal with his God which is exactly what Hebrews 3:2 says in the Greek (poiesanti) and RSV; and also what Revelation 3:14 says.  In spite of these clear texts identified in Acts with Christ the Ditheists and Binitarians refuse to deal with it. And the WCG offshoots deny the One True God is even mentioned in the OT which is a blatant misrepresentation.