eternal sonship?

[Jeff]

I was listening to a podcast of a broadcast from the other day, and the topic of the eternal sonship came up. Steve mentioned that although this is "orthodox" teaching, the Bible nowhere supports this. I know that many "orthodox"/conservative teachers like John MacArthur have been criticized for denying this teaching (although I think he has now changed his mind on this and now affirms the doctrine, I'd have to check my commentary by him to be sure). So would a more Biblical description of the trinity pre-incarnation be Father, Logos/Word, and Holy Spirit, with the post-incarnation trinity being Father, Son, Holy Spirit? I have always struggled with the concept of Jesus being "eternally begotten". This description of the trinity would seem to make passages like Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5 make more sense. I'm not sure how denying the doctrine of eternal sonship while still holding to the trinity and the deity of Jesus harms the doctrine of the trinity. I can see the Roman Catholic Church fighting this, but why do so many evangelicals?

[Priestly1]

Peace,

To state that the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ (Who is the eternal Image, Likeness and Form i.e.Davar/Logos of God the invisible Father) is unscriptural is to admit a lack of reasoning based upon explicit Scriptural testimony of the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings and the Works of the Apostles and St. Paul.

"Let this rational exist within all of you as it has always existed within Christ Jesus Himself - Who, although He had always existed as God's visible FORM (Morphe i.e. the eternally generated WORD), did not consider being God (the Father's) equivalent something to be fiercely retained, but instead voluntarily chose Himself to be completely poured out so as to come to exist in the visible FORM (Morphe) of a slave, and so to exist as humans do. in doing so He humbled Himself, showing Himself to be obedient even to His own demise, even death by crucifixion; Because of this God (the Father) raised Him up, and gave Him the NAME which excels all other names, so that at (the declaration of) this NAME of Jesus, every celestial, terrestrial and earth entombed knee shall bend, and every mouth shall declare that Jesus Christ is JEHOVAH to the glorification of God the Father."

"The Spokesman (ho Logos) has always existed (ene) in the Source (en Arche), and this Spokesman (ho Logos) has always existed with GOD (pros ton Theon), and the Spokeman (ho Logos) has always been God Himself (Gk = emphatic). This has always been so in and with GOD the Source. Though this (Spokesman) everything came into existence (Genesis 1), and without this (Spokesman) nothing that presently exists could have come into existence. in (God) Life has always existed, and this Life has always been humanity's Light. And this Light persists illuminating the present darkness, and the darkness has been unable to envelope it. Now the True Light which enlightens all mankind came into this world. He entered this world which had been created through His agency, yet this world did not recognize Him. He made a visitation to His own dominion, but His subjects would not acknowledge Him. Therefore to as many as do receive Him He has granted them the honor of becoming members of God's Family: this only applies to those who entrust themselves to His Name, and this is not based upon human blood lines, carnal passion or human effort but only from God. Now the Spokesman came to be in the flesh, even setting up His Tabernacle among us. We all saw His visibly glory (i.e. Christ's Transfigureted Mortal Body & His Resurrected Body) - The visible glory of the uniquely brought forth Son of (God) the Father - the filled completely with Grace and Truth. At no time has anyone ever seen God (the Father), for it has always been the uniquely brought forth Son who has always existed within (God) the Father's Heart, who has been His Revealer."

Read these literal renderings and consider the import, and then understand what Christ meant when he said, "Now return to Your Son the the glorious state I had with You long before the foundation of the world."

God is eternal and does not change, he has always had His Spokesman (Logos) and His Holy Spirit...the Right and Left Hands through which God the Father exercises His will to create, to redeem and to restore. He has always been the Father because He has always had His Son who has always existed in His Heart and eternally extended (i.e. begotten through eternal generation) as His visible Form, Image, Likeness and Spokesman/Respresentative. God has always been Father, Son and Holy Spirit....without change or variation...so too Jesus Christ His incarnate Spokesman is the same in the past, present and future. it was he who spoke all things into being and created Adam after his Image and Likeness. It was He who spoke personally in the Garden of Eden, to Cain, to Noah, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Israel, to Moses at the Bush, on Mount Horeb.....and to Isaiah and Ezekiel. It was He who summoned forth fire and brimstone from God His Father in Heaven upon Sodom and Gommorah below He stood. To see Him is to look upon the Father Himself, just as Adam unto His Family, Apostles, Disciples and Nation realized. To deny the eternal Sonship pf Christ..Who is eternally begotten by generation out of His father's Heart'''is to deny the eternal Fatherhood of God Who has always possessed and brought forth His WORD and His Spirit. You cannot have one without the other. Christ is unique in that He is eternally the unique born Son of God the Father as well as the unique Virgin born Son of Man.....Two Births for Two Natures.

Other facile or limited views lead to heresy in which the Son is denied His proper status thus denying the Poper status of His Father: Docetism, Paulicianism, Arianism, Unitarianism, Modalism, Ditheism and Tritheism.

Merry Christmas and remember that this is when we celebrate God the Son (as the author of Hebrews states) entered this world by incarnation through the Virgin Mary and by the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ was the Son of God before he became the Son of Mary - the Son of Man. Merry Christ's Mass!!!



Rev. Fr. Ken Huffman

[darinhouston]

Check out Paidion's translations...

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &sk=t&sd=a

How do you get to a literal translation of "has always existed?"

[Paidion]

I was listening to a podcast of a broadcast from the other day, and the topic of the eternal sonship came up. Steve mentioned that although this is "orthodox" teaching, the Bible nowhere supports this. I know that many "orthodox"/conservative teachers like John MacArthur have been criticized for denying this teaching (although I think he has now changed his mind on this and now affirms the doctrine, I'd have to check my commentary by him to be sure). So would a more Biblical description of the trinity pre-incarnation be Father, Logos/Word, and Holy Spirit, with the post-incarnation trinity being Father, Son, Holy Spirit? I have always struggled with the concept of Jesus being "eternally begotten". This description of the trinity would seem to make passages like Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5 make more sense. I'm not sure how denying the doctrine of eternal sonship while still holding to the trinity and the deity of Jesus harms the doctrine of the trinity. I can see the Roman Catholic Church fighting this, but why do so many evangelicals?

Jeff, the concept of Jesus being "eternally begotten" seems to be the only one that fits the Trinitarian concept as it was portrayed in the late 4th century. The historic view of the early church right up to and including the council of Nicea in 325 A.D., was that the Son of God was begotten by God the Father as a single act "before all ages", the first of God's acts. I concur with this early Christian view. Indeed, I believe the Father begat Him at the beginning of time (the "beginning" to which John refers in John 1:1). There was no time before the beginning of time, and so the Son always existed. Thus Arius was mistaken in saying "there was a time at which the Son did not exist". I suppose Arius believed in an infinite regression of time into the past, as we in our day have all be taught either explicitly or implicitly to believe. The original Nicene Creed (before it was changed to accommodate Trinitarianism, read:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, i.e., of the nature of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not created, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh and assumed man's nature, suffered and rose the third day, ascended to heaven, (and) shall come again to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But the holy and apostolic church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when he was not, and that he was made from things not existing, or from another person or being, saying that the Son of God is mutable, or changeable."

The creed was soon changed to read:

We believe in one God, father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible. And in one lord, Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten from the father, only-begotten, that is from the being of the father, God from God, light from light, true God from True God, begotten not created, one in being with the father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those on the earth, who because of us human beings and because of our salvation descended, became enfleshed, became human, suffered and rose on the third day, ascending to the heavens, coming to judge the living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. The catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes those who say: there was when he was not; and before being born he was not; or that he came to be from things that are not; or that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or ousia or mutable or changeable.

Both of the original and the later form use the phrase "begotten of the Father" as if the begetting were a single act. Even the version of the first Council of Constantinople in 381 referred to "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages".

I am not sure when the phrase "begotten of the Father" was changed to "eternally begotten" as in the 1973 version, but I suppose it was sometime in the 5th century.

But to address the issue of "eternal sonship", the phrase seems to imply an infinite regression of time into the past, and for this reason, I would reject it. However, if it simply means that He was the Son of God from the beginning of time, then I would concur.

[steve]

I have no personal objection to there being truth in some doctrine of eternal sonship (if that doctrine means that Jesus eternally enjoyed a son's relationship to the Father), but my statement (which cannot, I believe be refuted by biblical data) is that there is no place in the Bible which unambiguously speaks of Christ as having been God's "Son" prior to His incarnation. I believe that Jesus (as the scripture declares) was the "word" who "was God," and that He "existed in the form of God, but that is not the same thing as saying that the relationship of the Creator to His own Word was a father/son relationship prior to the incarnation.

Priestly1 alluded to (but did not reference) Hebrews 1:5, which, depending on the translation, can be read:

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world..." (ESV)

or else:

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world..." (NKJV)

In the two translational options, the placement of the word "again" is crucial. Does it just introduce a new point, as in the ESV (and the KJV, the NIV and the NLB); or does it refer to Christ coming again into the world (i.e., at His second coming), as in the NKJV (and the NASB, the ASV and the Young's Literal Translation)?

If the latter is correct, then it speaks of Christ as "firstborn" (i.e., implying sonship) at the time of His second coming, and is another example of my contention. If the former translational option is taken, it seems to refer to Christ as "firstborn" (i.e., implying sonship) at the time of His first coming in the incarnation (also agreeing with my contention). Priestly1 said that this verse refers to Christ's sonship prior to the incarnation, and, I confess, I once saw this to be the case also. It sounds as if it is saying "When God brought into the world He who was known previously as His Firstborn..." However, the wording by no means requires this. I could say, "When my wife brought our firstborn into the world..." and in no sense be suggesting that this child was my firstborn prior to his natural conception.

Thus the passages quoted by Priestly1 are no exception to my assertion, and are, in fact, the very passages from which I draw my information. If Jesus was eternally God's Son, then that is just fine with me, but I usually like to have at least one scriptural statement affirming something before I adopt it as a doctrine. Such a scriptural statement about this doctrine has yet to be brought to my attention.

Priestly1 makes the point that, if Jesus was not eternally a "son," then His Father was not eternally a "father." Yet, of course, God is sometimes referred to as a "father" in the Old Testament, before the incarnation of Christ. It may be noted, though, that God's title as "Father" in the Old Testament is a reference to His relationship with Israel, not with the Messiah, which means that the question under discussion here is not addressed by this data. I would also point out that God's specific role of fatherhood (which may or may not be implied in the term "the eternal Father") is no more asserted in the Old Testament than is the preincarnate sonship of Christ.

[Paidion]

...but my statement (which cannot, I believe be refuted by biblical data) is that there is no place in the Bible which unambiguously speaks of Christ as having been God's "Son" prior to His incarnation.

I was wondering, Steve, how you interpret this verse in Psalm 2:

Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. Psalm 2:12 NKJV

Psalm 2 is considered to be the clearest example of a Messianic psalm. I notice that the NKJV translators place an upper case "S" in "Son", and thereby reveal that they understand that the "Son" is the divine Son of God.

Also, the writer of Hebrews clearly indicates the "Son" who is begotten in verse 7 is the Son of God. In reading verse 7 in isolation, one might infer that David, the author of the psalm, is himself the "son", and that he is the "anointed one" of verse 2. But verse 7-9 seems to speak of One far greater and more powerful than David. Also, Yahweh probably didn't tell David on the day in which he was begotten, that He, the Father, had begotten Him that day. But at the beginning of time, when the Father begat His Son, He may have said those very words to Him.

1 Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 "Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us."
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion."
7 "I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
9 You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’"
10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. NKJV

[steve]

Jesus is certainly the "Son" in Psalm 2 (that is, from the understanding of the New Testament, though it may also have been seen as relevant to David in his generation. Verse 2 is specifically quoted by the apostles as being about Christ the Son. However, the Psalm is not talking about the pre-incarnate Christ, but about the resurrected Christ (so says Paul, Acts 13:33). Thus it fits my claim.

[Paidion]

Verse 2 is specifically quoted by the apostles as being about Christ the Son. However, the Psalm is not talking about the pre-incarnate Christ, but about the resurrected Christ (so says Paul, Acts 13:33). Thus it fits my claim.

This is how I once understood Acts 13:33, too. But it just doesn't make sense. In what sense did the Father "beget" Jesus by raising Him from the dead?

Acts 13:
32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,
“‘You are my Son,
today I have begotten you.’ ESV

The phrase "by raising Jesus" may indicate that the Father begat Him and brought Him into being at the beginning of time. He raised Him up for the purpose of bringing the good news to mankind, and through His disciples to continue to bring forth this good news. Alternately, it could be argued that He raised Jesus up by bringing Him into the world as a human being. This is another sense in which the Father "begat Him".

In the verses which follow, Luke, the author of Acts, seems to make Jesus's resurrection from the dead another issue.

34 And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way,
“‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’
35 Therefore he says also in another psalm,
“‘You will not let your Holy One see corruption.’ ESV

Now I know the NKJV begins verse 34 as "and that", which is a correct literal translation. But doesn't it have the same meaning as the ESV's "and as for the fact that"? Doesn't Luke in vs 33 write of the Father raising up Jesus for a purpose, which he supports with the quote from Psalm 2? And then quotes other psalms to support the fact that the Father raised Him from the dead (as a separate issue?

[look2jesus]

It looks to me that the focus of v. 34 is that Jesus will no more return to corruption, having been raised from the dead, which fact is then supported by the following qoutes.

[steve]

Paidion,

I personally have no problem with seeing God refer to resurrection as a "birth" from the tomb.

Psalm 2 cannot possibly be affirming "eternal" begetting, since it specifically says "This day I have begotten you"—pointing to an event within history, or at least within time. The resurrection would be the only interpretation I can find directly supported in scripture (Acts 13:33). It also fits the context of Psalm 2 generally. The opening verses describe the opposition of Pilate, Herod and the Jews to Christ at the time of His crucifixion (see Acts 4:25-27). What would be more natural than to mention His resurrection next (at verse 7)—especially since it is associated with His enthronement in verse 6. Christ's enthronement is always associated, in the New Testament, with Christ's resurrection/ascension. If we did not have the statement of Paul in Acts, the next most obvious and logical thing would be to apply Psalm 2:7 to the nativity.