Featured When did Christ embrace Sonship?

Unless I've missed it, no one has quoted Psalm 2.

'I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You."' (v.7).

So when is 'today'? When did God issue His decree(s)? In eternity! There was never a time when Christ was not the only begotten Son.

 

then why do you suppose the writer of Hebrews quoted the psalm AND 2Sam 7:14

'I WILL BE a Father to Him and He shall be My Son'

???

 

---
Jon: I'd be happy to offer my understanding of it. But "briefly"? You don't know me so well.. BIG MOUTH BILL SAYS:

8 Reasons Why Phil 2 Means Christ's Equality With God Never Changed

1. Morphe (form) in 2:6 refers to the divine nature(Braumann,NIDNT;Behm, TDNT)

2. The articular infinitive in 2:6 ("the to be") should be understood as concessive (explaining the form of God just mentioned). In other words, IMO, the text is saying that because Christ is in God's nature, He is God's equal.

3. The context --later becoming obedient-- seems to include relational equality in equality with God.

4. The word in 2:6 understood and translated by some as Christ not clinging or grasping at equality suggesting He did not have it or had it but gave it up is harpagmos. But a Harvard ThD dissertation convinces me that it cannot mean such. When harpagmos as a predicate adjective is used with hegesato (deemed it) it takes on the idiomatic meaning of not using what one possesses for his own advancement. ( Hoover, The Harpagmos Enigma, Harvard Theological Review, 56.) So Christ did not lose equality with God! The argument that since God the Son is in a body He cannot be omnipresent or omniscient is dashed against the rock of the NT insistence that the embodied Christ is both omniscient & omnipresent. God the Son is not confined by His body.

5. To be noted is the emphatic form of the masculine pronoun in ("all' heauton") "Rather, Himself He emptied." This seems to imply that what occurs in 2:7 is not mandated by Another. As Barth asserts, Christ did this in " sovereign divine freedom." See also Hawthone & Feinberg. No suggestion of role subordination here!

6.The emptying is defined and accomplished by a taking of something NOT a giving up of something. That is the meaning of the participle labon ( a servant form taking) . No giving up of God's powers or qualities is required because laying aside of something is not the kenosis.

7. What is taken is a servant's morphe (nature) IF morphe means nature in 2:6, I think it means nature in 2:7!

8. Thefore the incarnate Christ is of two natures, and IMO what is true of one nature is not true of the other. In His deity , He is equal to God both essentially and (IMO) relationally. But in His humanity, He is just like us save for sin.

IMO: As God He does not obey; as Man He perfectly obeys. AND, He is to be my example to follow in obedience (2:5). BUT if He obeys as God, how can I possibly copy that even with the Spirit's good help I am lowly man.

I just love this stuff!

 

would you do a favor?

You have used two phrases about Christ which i have noticed thousands of times, yet do not find in scripture....

In His deity
In His humanity

Can you expound in unambiguous terms?

Do you see deity and humanity as essence, substance, ontological makeup? I have in mind either:
divine spirit in a human body, or
two spirits (human and divine) in one body

Or do you use those ambiguous phrases in some other way?

 

Hello James

By "in His deity" I reference the morphe (nature, essence spoken of in Phil 2:6. By "in His humanity" i reference the morphe (nature, essence) in 2:7.

 

Great question, JamesL! A lot of ink has been spilled on this over the years. I note that A.W. Pink, who was a great exegete, disagrees with me, and he's not the only one; but nevertheless, my view is simply that Psalm 2 refers to our Lord's eternal generation, and 2 Sam 7 to His incarnation. It is the Son by whom the worlds were made (Heb. 1:2), so I don't see that He only became the Son at His incarnation.

 

An obvious verse just popped into my head: 'Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever' (Heb. 13:8). There was a time when He became incarnate, but there was never a time when He was not the only begotten Son of God.

 

God hath in full completed this to us their children, having raised up Jesus, as also in the second Psalm it hath been written, My Son thou art -- I to-day have begotten thee. Acts 13:33 YLT

whom God did raise up, having loosed the (lit, birth pains) pains of the death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it, Acts 2:24 YLT
Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Isa 66:7 part of 8

What man child, singular, is this speaking of being brought forth, born, this day? What day were the birth pangs loosed? The first day? The second day? The third day?

 

Hi, prof. I gathered that much, but that didn't relieve any ambiguity.

When you speak of the distinction between divine/human are you referring to dichotomy of substance (Spirit/body) ?

Or do you think it speaks of two distinct inner "qualities" blended into one, then wrapped in a body ?

And if it's the second, define quality or replace it with a word that fits better in your understanding.

And if you replace "quality" with another word, try not to use a word which can have more than one meaning.

And if you do use a word which can have more than one meaning, define it in terms which leave nothing to be interpreted.

Or if it's neither of the two options I've presented, get down to the meat snd bones of your view.

explain thyself young man.

I ask because of all the hundreds of people I've met who have used these phrases - in His divinity/in His humanity - only two of them could actually frame their thoughts unambiguously. In other words, they really didn't know what they were saying. They were simply parroting the theological jargon of men.

 

Thanks for a good laugh. The guy has written a book on the subject, ergo he is right? Surely you don't mean this!!

 

Indubitably. Not only integrity but BB rules require this.

 

Beware the teachings and traditions of men (Mark 7:7-13) especially in seminary. 25 years ago I attended Southwestern Baptist Seminary (Austin extension). I ended up leaving the seminary extension course and eventually the denomination for many years over humanist / atheist teachings adopted in the seminary (under the guise of higher biblical criticism) and the way the SB convention totally compromised on the Freemason issue (since so many in the hierarchy of the convention are in the higher degrees of Scottish rite masonry)...

 

Thanks for this, Percho. These are deep waters and I think I need to study a little more before shooting my mouth off any further.
I will only say, that Jesus Christ's 'Goings forth are from old, from everlasting' (Micah 5:2b), and yet He is 'The same yesterday, today and forever' (Heb. 13:8).

 

The authority for Christology, Theology, doctrines, and all truth is the Bible the Word of God. And everything pertaining to fact and truth and reality must adhere to the Bible and not the other way around.

That being said, the sonship of Christ according to the Bible did not exist until the incarnation.

Hebrews 10:5 (NASB95)
5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, But a body You have prepared for Me;

Hebrews 1:5 (NASB95)
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again, “I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me”?

It does not say I always was your Father and you always were my Son.

 

Beware even more the words of men who claim to follow nothing but the Bible, unless you want to end up in the company of Charles Taze Russell and Harold Camping. 'The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd' (Eccl. 12:11).

 

The incarnation itself is a very intense subject.

 

Charles T. Russell, Joseph Smith jr., and the like did not follow the Bible but chose to reinvent the traditions of men in their own image... which they managed by goading "orthodoxy's" traditions of men. If we all had followed the Bible nuts like Russel and Smith would never have had a following in the first place.

 

The teachings of my mentor, the late great Dr. Walter Martin, trained me well on matters you insinuate. And I assure you I am not above reproach (nor is any man or denomination) since the Apostle Paul commended the Bereans for testing his own teaching by scripture (Acts 17:11). Who is anyone else not to be put to the test? Certainly not me!