Will Women in the First Resurrection Also Become Known As 'Sons Of God'?

God has set in motion a plan to create the Family of God. Currently that Family consists of God the Father and His firstborn Son Jesus Christ. At the time of the first resurrection 144,000 individuals will be added to that Family. Will they ALL be known as "SONS of God", irrespective of whether they were men or whether they were women during their physical lifetimes? Specifically, will the women in the first resurrection also be called "SONS of God"? In the resurrection are women supposed to think of themselves as "SONS of God" and forget the identity they had during their physical lives? Or will women in the first resurrection think of themselves as "DAUGHTERS of God"?

Consider that it was GOD who created male and female. God created the human family with clear distinctions between men and women. "Sons" is obviously a masculine term, a term we would never use to refer to women or girls. We all know that the complement of "sons" is "daughters". Why would God plan it so that men can retain their masculine identity in the resurrection (though there will be no marriages amongst spirit beings; see Matthew 22:30, etc.), but women will have to accept a masculine identity, that of "sons"?

What does the Bible show us on this question?

As it happens, there are two different Greek words which the KJV has indiscriminately treated as synonyms, where they are not really synonyms at all. This has created some confusion.

Consider the three English words: "son", "daughter" and "child".

The expression "my child" can refer to my son or to my daughter. But the words "child" and "son" are not synonyms. Likewise, the words "child" and "daughter" are not synonyms. The plural "my children" firstly implies my sons and my daughters. It is only if I don’t have any daughters that "my children" would mean "my sons"; and if I don’t have any sons then "my children" would mean "my daughters". However, the first and foremost meaning of "children" is that this term includes sons and daughters.

Now if we were to treat the words "sons" and "children" as synonyms, as freely interchangeable, then that would obviously display a clear bias against any potential "daughters". In effect we would be saying: since we know that there are no daughters anywhere, therefore we can treat the words "children" and "sons" as being completely identical in meaning. That is what has happened in the KJV.

We need to recognize this underlying assumption when we see the Greek words for "sons" and "children" being treated as completely synonymous. We should also recognize that this assumption is a mistake, that we have no justification for making this assumption. If ONLY sons were involved, then the word "children" would be completely superfluous. The word "children" serves the precise purpose of making provision for both sons and daughters.

Never forget this primary purpose for the existence of the word "children", to make allowance for both sons and daughters.

In the KJV we find that the Greek word for "sons" is sometimes translated as "sons" and at other times as "children". Similarly, the Greek word for "children" is sometimes translated as "sons" and at other times as "children". These two words are treated as if they were completely interchangeable. This confusion also includes mistranslations in certain key verses, which have an impact on our understanding of this question. Obviously, if we base our understanding on a text where we read "sons", when the actual Greek text really says "children", then there exists the possibility that we are being misled to some degree.

Shortly we’ll look at 19 verses that are involved in this question. But first let’s keep one other point in mind.

The Bible frequently uses the word "man" when it really means "men AND women", i.e. when it means mankind. The words "man" and "men" are in many cases simply a shorter more efficient way of conveying the idea of "men and women".

For example:

DEUTERONOMY 8:3 says "man does not live by bread only". Obviously, here the word "man" includes all women (see also Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4).

PSALM 39:6 says "every man walks in a vain show". Again, here the word "man" stands for all human beings, not men only.

GENESIS 6:5 says "God saw that the wickedness of man was great". Again, here the word "man" also stands for all human beings.

MATTHEW 5:40 says "if any man will sue you at the law". Again, here the word "man" also stands for anyone, man or woman.

ZECHARIAH 9:1 says: "when the eyes of man, as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be toward the LORD". Again, here "man" stands for all people, men and women.

LAMENTATIONS 4:4 says: " the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them". Again, the word "man" here refers to anyone, man or woman, who could offer food in these dire circumstances.

There are numerous further examples that could be cited to illustrate this point, that the Bible frequently uses the word "man" (or "men") for the sake of brevity, when in actual fact both, men and women, are the subject under discussion. You are no doubt already aware of this principle. Later we will come back to this point.

Now let’s examine the Greek words that are involved in this question.

The Greek word for "son" is "HUIOS" (plural is "huioi").

The Greek word for "daughter" is "THUGATER" (plural is "thugateras").

The Greek word for "child" is "TEKNON" (plural is "tekna").

[COMMENT: To keep things simple, I will at times use the singular form of these three Greek words (the form you will find in a dictionary), though all but one of the verses we will examine use these words in the plural form. There is also an additional Greek word for "child", which is "pais", and a number of other words are based on "pais".]

The word "huios" is generally used for the male offspring of a father and a mother. The counterpart of "huios" is "thugater". The two Greek words "huios" and "thugater" emphasize the idea of relationship to the parents. The relationship is that of a son or a daughter. Later we’ll look at one verse which contains both of these two Greek words.

The word "teknon", on the other hand, emphasizes the idea of descent from the parents. That descent makes the person involved a child of the parents, without regard for the sex of that child. The word "teknon" can refer to a "huios", but "teknon" can equally well refer to a "thugater".

[COMMENT: "Pais", the other Greek word for "child", also emphasizes the idea of descent from the parents, but gives special prominence to the young age of the child. We might think of "pais" as meaning something like "youngster".]

We need to clearly grasp that "huios" and "teknon" are NOT synonyms.

As an aside, modern Greek has two words for "son" and another two words for "child". The two modern Greek words for "son" are "HUIOS" and "GIOS", and the two modern Greek words for "child" are "TEKNON" and "PAIDI". The words "huios" and "teknon" have distinct meanings, and they are not freely interchangeable, neither in biblical Greek, nor in modern Greek.

If it seems like I am here overstating the obvious, that is only because in the KJV the words "teknon" and "huios" have unfortunately been translated rather carelessly. And it just happens that some of our own potential bias in this area is based on these rather careless translations.

Let’s now first examine the scriptures that are involved in this question. After that we can pick up the trail of how these incorrect translations found their way into the KJV.

Let’s start with 11 verses that contain the word "teknon", the NEW TESTAMENT Greek word for "child" and "children". All references, unless otherwise stated, are to the KJV.

We’ll look at 11 verses. In seven cases the word ‘teknon" has been CORRECTLY translated as "CHILDREN", in reference to "children of God". Here are those seven references:

Notice that none of the above references (two in Romans 8:16-17) speak specifically about "sons". They ALL use the Greek word for "children", and this has been translated correctly in the KJV.

Now let’s notice four verses where "teknon" has been INCORRECTLY translated as "SONS".

Let’s face it: these are key verses in any discussion about "the sons of God". Consider how often we have quoted 1 John 3:1-2, and the truth is that the word "sons" is not even used in these two verses, or in any of the others quoted above!

ALL OF THE ABOVE 11 VERSES speak about "THE CHILDREN OF GOD"! None of these verses speak specifically about "sons"! We have now seen 11 verses that speak about God having CHILDREN, thus clearly implying both, sons and daughters.

Let’s now look at one scripture that summarizes what we have seen thus far.

In this last reference the Greek word "huios" has been correctly translated as "sons". Paul’s use of the word "thugater" here also makes clear that "thugater" is the opposite of the word "huios"; it is NOT the opposite of the word "teknon"! "Teknon" simply does not mean "son"; "teknon" means "child".

Now let’s look at eight verses that use the word "huios".

We’ll see four verses where "huios" has been CORRECTLY translated as "SONS" (once in the singular form "son") in reference to "sons of God", and one verse where it is used to refer to Jesus Christ to illustrate the singular form.

Here are these five verses.

These are the verses that speak about "the sons of God"! In this regard Romans 8 is of special interest. In Romans 8:14 and Romans 8:19 Paul used the word "huios" (sons), and in verses 16, 17 and 21 (also in Romans 9:8 in the next chapter) Paul used the word "teknon" (children). So in the context of Romans 8-9 in reference to our future destiny Paul used the word "huios" twice, and he used the word "teknon" four times.

When Paul used the word "huios" in this context, it was for variety. He clearly used the word "huios" as a general term, obviously including "daughters". This is like using the word "man" when women are clearly intended to be included. It is after all Paul himself who refers to "sons and daughters" of Almighty God in 2 Corinthians 6:18.

As far as Revelation 21:7 is concerned: since the first part of this verse speaks about "HE that overcomes", the second part obviously has to say "son". The clear follow-on therefore is that "SHE that overcomes" (which is not mentioned but is implied) will become God’s daughter. Clearly there will be both men and women who will overcome.

Now let’s look at three verses where "huios" is INCORRECTLY translated as "CHILDREN".

These three verses actually speak about "the sons of God", rather than simply "the children of God". Now the point is that all sons are children, but not all children are sons, since some children are daughters. So where the KJV here translates "huios" as "children", it still conveys the basically correct meaning in these verses. But it was nevertheless wrong to here render ‘huios" as "children"! The main harm done by the mistranslation in these three verses is that these mistranslations help to blur the distinction between the Greek words "huios" and "teknon", making them appear as being completely interchangeable. That is wrong!

So when we apply the correct translations to the words "teknon" and "huios", then we have about a dozen verses that refer to the children of God, and another seven verses that speak about the sons of God. No doubt some other verses could also be included in this discussion. What should be clear is that the verses we have in the past viewed as making the strongest statements about "sons of God" don’t actually contain the word "sons" in the Greek text; they really contain the word for "children".

We might note that in our context the Apostle John consistently used the word "teknon", rather than the word "huios". It is the Apostle Paul who alternated between these two words. And in quoting the words of Jesus Christ, which were spoken in Aramaic and not in Greek, Matthew and Luke have Jesus Christ using the word "huios".

Now it is NOT a matter of "either-or". BOTH words are certainly correct and appropriate. But that does not mean that in the resurrection women will somehow be viewed as "SONS of God". They will be "daughters of God", as Paul himself also stated in 2 Corinthians 6:18. Apart from recognizing the four incorrect translations of "teknon", we should not confuse statements intended to keep things simple (cf. the use of "man" when both men and women are clearly implied) with somehow being equivalent to assigning the male gender to women in the resurrection.

God wants to build a Family with sons AND with daughters.

Now let’s look at the reason why the KJV has treated the words "teknon" and "huios" as synonyms, and freely translated both words sometimes as "sons" and sometimes as "children".

The King James translators did not come up with these wrong translations completely on their own. They simply followed precedents that had been set by others before them.

THE REAL SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM goes back to the Catholic scholar Jerome and his Latin Vulgate translation. Let’s consider all of the 18 verses we have examined above (i.e. ignoring 2 Corinthians 6:18). Here is what we find:

1) In our context the New Testament writers John, Paul, Matthew and Luke had made free use of TWO different words, using the word meaning "children" slightly more often, and using the word meaning "sons" slightly less often.

2) In his Latin Vulgate translation Jerome COMPLETELY ERASED any distinction between "teknon" and "huios". In 17 out of 18 places Jerome translated both these words with the one and same Latin word for "SONS"! That Latin word is "filius" in its various forms. Only in 1 John 5:2 did Jerome translate "teknon" as "natos", Latin for "children".

3) For the next 1000 years most scholars were limited to reading the Latin text, and the concept of "children of God" was replaced by the term "sons of God". Nobody considered the idea of "daughters of God". Since people didn’t take the concept of "sons of God" literally anyway (i.e. they didn’t believe that anyone would become a REAL son of God) what difference does it make whether you speak about "sons of God" or about "daughters of God" or about "children of God"? To them the expression "sons of God" was nothing more than an empty religious term, devoid of any REAL meaning. They believed in "the beatific vision", and in this picture there was no room for REAL sons of God.

4) To make this quite plain: for anyone who does not understand and believe that God is actually building a REAL Family, with REAL sons and daughters, it makes no difference at all whether you use the term "sons of God" or whether you use the term "children of God". Since none of the Catholic scholars over the centuries believed that salvation will produce REAL sons of God (and also REAL daughters of God), therefore they invariably viewed the terms "sons of God" and "children of God" as being totally synonymous.

5) The first English translation of the Bible of any significance was the 1380 John Wycliffe Translation. Wycliffe did not have access to any Greek New Testament, and his translation was based completely on the Latin text of the Vulgate.

A) As far as our discussion is concerned: Jerome had translated 10 of the 11 verses with the word "teknon" as "sons". Consequently Wycliffe also translated all 10 of those verses as "sons". It is only in 1 John 5:2, where Jerome had used the word "natos", that Wycliffe translated this as "children". Specifically, Wycliffe used the word "sons" in John 1:12, in Philippians 2:15, and in 1 John 3:1-2. Wycliffe’s translation was clearly completely dominated by the text of the Vulgate.

B) Where Jerome had used the word "sons" in all seven of the verses with the Greek word "huios", Wycliffe chose to translate five of them with the word "sons", and he translated the other two verses (Matthew 5:9 and Galatians 3:26) with the word "children". These last two verses represented mistranslations, both of the original Greek word "huios" (which Wycliffe never saw), and of the Latin word for "sons" (which was found in Wycliffe’s source document).

6) In 1537 the Matthew’s Bible was published. This was still before the New Testament was divided into verses. It was officially a translation from the Greek text of the NEW TESTAMENT. However, an examination of our 18 verses shows that this translation relied on the Latin Vulgate text and/or the Wycliffe’s Translation to a far greater degree than is generally admitted.

A) For the 11 verses with the Greek word "teknon" the Matthew’s Bible translated this 7 times as "sons" and 4 times as "children". In this they followed the Latin text far more than the Greek text. Thus there are 7 mistranslations in these 11 verses.

B) For the 7 verses with the Greek word "huios" the Matthew’s Bible translated this 6 times as "sons" and only once (Matthew 5:9) as "children. So there is only one mistranslation in these 7 verses.

7) When the 1560 Geneva Bible Translation came along, the translators did the following things:

A) In the 11 verses that contain the Greek word "teknon", they translated this five times as "sons" and six times as "children". They knew that "teknon" means "children", but they chose to blur the distinction between the two Greek words involved.

B) In the 7 verses that contain the word "huios", they translated 5 verses as "sons" and two verses (Matthew 5:9 and Hebrews 2:10) as "children". These two verses also represented mistranslations of the Greek word "huios.

8) Then in the 1611 KJV Translation the translators did the following:

A) In the 11 verses that contain the Greek word "teknon", they copied the mistranslations provided by Wycliffe and the Geneva Translation before them for the four verses we have already examined (John 1:12; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1-2). In the other 7 verses they provided the correct translation "children".

B) In the 7 verses with the word "huios" they copied Wycliffe’s mistranslation as "children" in Matthew 5:9 and in Galatians 3:26. Then they added a mistranslation of their own in Luke 20:36. The other four instances they translated correctly as "sons".

To illustrate this progression, here is a table with the 11 verses that all contain the Greek word "teknon". In all 11 verses the correct translation is "CHILDREN".

So for these 11 verses: the Latin Vulgate and the Wycliffe Translation each contain 10 mistranslations, the Matthew’s Bible contains 7 mistranslations, the Geneva Bible contains 5 mistranslations, and the KJV contains 4 mistranslations.

Now here is a table with the 7 verses that all contain the Greek word "huios". In all 7 verses the correct translation is "SONS" (singular "son" in Revelation 21:7).

So for these 7 verses: the Latin Vulgate does not contain any mistranslations, the Wycliffe Translation contains 2 mistranslations, the Matthew’s Bible contains only one mistranslation, the Geneva Bible contains 2 mistranslations, and the KJV contains 3 mistranslations.

And that shows how these mistranslations found their way into the KJV. Keep in mind that none of the translators, from Wycliffe to the KJV, really understood what the expression "the children of God" means. None of them understood that God is in the process of building a real Family of God Beings. And without that understanding it didn’t make much of a difference to them whether they translated either Greek expression as "sons of God" or as "children of God". They didn’t view either term as having a real literal meaning.

In one sense it might look like we are quibbling about a minor issue. But the real significance of these mistranslations, starting with Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, is the deliberate attempt to obscure the fact that God is building a real Family of God, with real sons and real daughters.

The Latin Vulgate Translation has been Satan’s greatest weapon for introducing false teachings and for obscuring the true teachings of the Bible. To attack the fact that God is building a real Family, Satan first had the word for "children" removed from expressions that refer to "children of God". This already reduces everything to one single gender, male. It is obviously difficult to think of a real family if you have only one gender to work with (I am speaking about a situation where there was no mother around to start with, not a situation where the mother has died or departed from the scene). God the Father and Jesus Christ and sons of God are all the masculine gender. Unless you can find some individuals to fit the feminine gender you don’t have a real family. You can only have a "let’s pretend family". But God is assuredly not producing a "let’s pretend family"!

And while John Wycliffe may have followed this lead in ignorance of the facts, the translators of the Matthew’s Bible, the Geneva Bible and of the KJV really knew better, because they all had access to the correct Greek text. But they chose to follow the Vulgate’s precedent and Wycliffe’s precedent in key verses, rather than providing accurate translations. They had no idea that in providing these mistranslations they were simply reinforcing Satan’s deception regarding the Family that God is in the process of building.

To be quite clear: in this whole discussion there is a major problem and there is a minor problem. The major problem involves the four verses where the Greek word for "children" has been mistranslated in the KJV as "sons". These mistranslations distort the real picture. The minor problem involves the three verses where the Greek word for "sons" has been mistranslated in the KJV as "children". These three mistranslations are not very significant because they don’t create a wrong picture; and if they were the only problem then I would not have bothered to write an article about this subject.

The Family which God is in the process of creating is going to be complete! And it will include both, sons and daughters. Women in the first resurrection will all be known, amongst other things, as "daughters of God"; they will not assume the masculine gender.

Frank W. Nelte