Textual: This verse is problematic when compared to other extant texts from the Old Testament that would be comparable to the time period of Zenos. The sentiment of the address to God is similar, but this verse redirects the mercies of God through an intermediary, the Son. We may assume that this abbreviated title “thy Son” is shortened for “son of God,” though that is an ambiguous phrase in the Old Testament. The only time we find the expression “son of God” in the Old Testament is in Daniel, which is a later text than Zenos:
Daniel 3:25
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
In the case of the text in Daniel, the term “Son of God” is applied to an angel, and there is no indication that anything is meant other than to distinguish the form of the angel from the human forms of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the furnace.
Easton’s Dictionary provides the following information:
“Son of God The plural, “"sons of God, ”" is used (Gen. 6:2, 4) to denote the pious descendants of Seth. In Job 1:6; 38:7 this name is applied to the angels. Hosea uses the phrase (1:10) to designate the gracious relation in which men stand to God.
In the New Testament this phrase frequently denotes the relation into which we are brought to God by adoption (Rom. 8:14, 19; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 4:5, 6; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2). It occurs thirty-seven times in the New Testament as the distinctive title of our Saviour… When used with reference to creatures, whether men or angels, this word is always in the plural. In the singular it is always used of the second Person of the Trinity, with the single exception of Luke 3:38, where it is used of Adam." (M.G. Easton. Illustrated Bible Dictionary).
As we will see below, the reaction of the people to whom Zenos and Zenock preached was rejection of the message. What Zenos and Zenock preached was not the standard understanding of the people at that time.
S. Kent Brown astutely notes that both Zenos and Zenock use the title “son” but do not specifically extend that title to “son of God,” as Alma does:
“In my view, however, Alma (in Alma 33:11, 13, 16) brought together the passages from the writings of these two men which proved a point about the Son of God. Zenos and Zenock called the Messiah Son whereas Alma called him Son of God (Alma 33:14, 17ff. Had Alma known of a passage in which either Zenock or Zenos mentioned the Son of God, he surely would have used it to make his point to the Zoramites.” (Lehi’s Personal Record: Quest for a Missing Source by S. Kent Brown, BYU Studies, vol. 24 (1984), Number 1 - Winter 1984, Footnote.)
This verse ends the citation from Zenos.