SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
HEBREWS 1:5
"For unto which of the Angels said He at any time: 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee...and again when He brings forth the First-born..." (also verse 6a).
Here verse six holds the answer to the words in verse five (This day...). Here Paul says "again, when He brings forth the First-born". By using the Greek παλιν, Paul meant, "once more" (E Robinson; Greek-English Lexicon, p.586; J Parkhurst Greek-English Lexicon, p.453). Verse six clearly refers to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a fact that no one one will dispute. With παλιν Paul wishes to connect verse six (the Second Coming), with verse five, which teaches the First Coming, or else the use of παλιν in verse six is superfluous. There can be no doubt that verse five refers to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
HEBREWS 5:5
"So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made a High Priest; but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee"
Here we read of Jesus as our High Priest, where His appointment was not of Himself, but it is the Father Who said to Him, "This day...", Who appointed Him. This text ties in with the references in Acts and Hebrews 1:5, which both refer to the Incarnation of Jesus. It is highly improbable that the reference in Acts, and the one in Hebrews 1 would refer to Christ's Incarnation, whereas the reference in Hebrews 5, speaks of another time.
It is further argued, that passages like John 3:13, and 6:62, which speak of "the Son of man" as coming from heaven, clearly indicate that Jesus must have been the Son in heaven before He came down. But, these Scriptures by no mean prove the Eternal Son-ship. The Title The Son of man is found in the book of Daniel in the Old Testament, chapter seven. This Title is used to describe the Messiah, something that Jesus was not prior to His birth. Now, had John 6:62, for example, read "What and if ye shall see the Son ascend up where He was before?"; then proponents of the Eternal Son-ship doctrine would have had a very strong text on their side. But nothing can be gained by them from the text reading Son of man. It is quite evident, that had Jesus wished to show that He was the Son prior to His Incarnation, then He would have said "Son of God", and not "Son of man". The former refers to His Deity (Divine Nature), whereas the latter to His Humanity (human nature), and which is a Title of the Messiah. It is like 1 Corinthians 15:47, where Paul's speaks of "the second man", Who is Jesus Christ, Whom he says "is the Lord from heaven". This reading which dates from the middle of the second century (textual evidence), has been corrupted to read: "the second man is from heaven", which has led to heresy, where it is claimed that Paul here teaches that Jesus was a heavenly man (that is, according to His human nature) before His birth from Mary. But Paul clearly says that "the second man is the Lord from heaven", like he says in 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh". It never says in Scripture that "the Son (or, Son of God) was made flesh", but it clearly does say as we have seen in 1 Timothy 3:16, and in John 1:14, that "God became flesh"
Scripture does say that "in the beginning was the Word". It also says that "God was manifest". And that Jesus is "the Lord (YHWH) from heaven". There is no doubt in my mind that the Son-ship of Jesus Christ, belongs to His Incarnation, prior to which He was not the Son. He assumed the Title Son, because at his Incarnation He took on a role where he became subject to God the Father, thus showing the perfect Father-Son relationship in the Godhead.
"For unto which of the Angels said He at any time: 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee...and again when He brings forth the First-born..." (also verse 6a).
Here verse six holds the answer to the words in verse five (This day...). Here Paul says "again, when He brings forth the First-born". By using the Greek παλιν, Paul meant, "once more" (E Robinson; Greek-English Lexicon, p.586; J Parkhurst Greek-English Lexicon, p.453). Verse six clearly refers to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a fact that no one one will dispute. With παλιν Paul wishes to connect verse six (the Second Coming), with verse five, which teaches the First Coming, or else the use of παλιν in verse six is superfluous. There can be no doubt that verse five refers to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
HEBREWS 5:5
"So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made a High Priest; but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee"
Here we read of Jesus as our High Priest, where His appointment was not of Himself, but it is the Father Who said to Him, "This day...", Who appointed Him. This text ties in with the references in Acts and Hebrews 1:5, which both refer to the Incarnation of Jesus. It is highly improbable that the reference in Acts, and the one in Hebrews 1 would refer to Christ's Incarnation, whereas the reference in Hebrews 5, speaks of another time.
It is further argued, that passages like John 3:13, and 6:62, which speak of "the Son of man" as coming from heaven, clearly indicate that Jesus must have been the Son in heaven before He came down. But, these Scriptures by no mean prove the Eternal Son-ship. The Title The Son of man is found in the book of Daniel in the Old Testament, chapter seven. This Title is used to describe the Messiah, something that Jesus was not prior to His birth. Now, had John 6:62, for example, read "What and if ye shall see the Son ascend up where He was before?"; then proponents of the Eternal Son-ship doctrine would have had a very strong text on their side. But nothing can be gained by them from the text reading Son of man. It is quite evident, that had Jesus wished to show that He was the Son prior to His Incarnation, then He would have said "Son of God", and not "Son of man". The former refers to His Deity (Divine Nature), whereas the latter to His Humanity (human nature), and which is a Title of the Messiah. It is like 1 Corinthians 15:47, where Paul's speaks of "the second man", Who is Jesus Christ, Whom he says "is the Lord from heaven". This reading which dates from the middle of the second century (textual evidence), has been corrupted to read: "the second man is from heaven", which has led to heresy, where it is claimed that Paul here teaches that Jesus was a heavenly man (that is, according to His human nature) before His birth from Mary. But Paul clearly says that "the second man is the Lord from heaven", like he says in 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh". It never says in Scripture that "the Son (or, Son of God) was made flesh", but it clearly does say as we have seen in 1 Timothy 3:16, and in John 1:14, that "God became flesh"
Scripture does say that "in the beginning was the Word". It also says that "God was manifest". And that Jesus is "the Lord (YHWH) from heaven". There is no doubt in my mind that the Son-ship of Jesus Christ, belongs to His Incarnation, prior to which He was not the Son. He assumed the Title Son, because at his Incarnation He took on a role where he became subject to God the Father, thus showing the perfect Father-Son relationship in the Godhead.
Last edited:
