Why I believe in the Eternal Son (Eternal Sonship)

[JonC]

'Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah; Deut 6:4
A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.' Psalms 110:1

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Ex 3:14 KJV
I am that I am - אהיה אשר אהיה Eheyeh asher Eheyeh
John Calvin commentary - .I am that I am. The verb in the Hebrew is in the future tense, “I will be what I will be;
Adam Clarke - As the original words literally signify, I will be what I will be,

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

Not sure about your question but mine would be; Did the Word, I will be what I will be, become flesh, when the Son of the Highest was conceived in and brought forth from, the seed of the virgin woman, Mary?

There are two biblical positions. One defines "sonship" as proceeding from the Father (the Logos or the Word). The other looks to "today I have begotten You" (which speaks of the Resurrection - not the Incarnation).

But Scripture has the Father referring to Christ as His Son before the the Resurrection.

Point being "today I have begotten You" refers to Christ as the Firstborn raised from the dead and given the glory and honor He had previously set aside.

I belueve Christ us the Word (eternally the "expression" of the Father) and in that sense hold the former definition on "Sonship".

Acts 13:30–34 But God raised Him from the dead;
and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. “And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers,that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You.’As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’

 

[JonC]

The Second Person in the Holy Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ, also known in the OT as The Angel (Messenger) of the Lord", Who is Himself also YAHWEH, and 100% equal to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Yes, that is not in debate here.

What we are discussing is whether or not the Second Person of the Trinity is eternally the Logos or if he became the Word (the expression or Son of God).

I believe the Second Person of the Trinity is eternally the Word and became flesh and on the day He was resurrected was "begotten" (becane the Firstborn of many brethern).

 

[SavedByGrace]

in that He raised up Jesus

can also mean the Raising up of Jesus in His Coming, as it was foretold in Deut. 18:15, "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken". Acts 3:22, "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you"; 7:37, "This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.". Which is what the Greek scholar, Dr A T Robertson, among others, say, "Hath fulfilled (ekpeplêrôken). Hath filled out (ek). Unto our children (tois teknois hêmôn). The MSS. vary greatly here about hêmôn (our), some have autôn, some autôn hêmin. Westcott and Hort consider these readings "a primitive error" for hêmin (to us) taken with anastêsas Iêsoun (having for us raised up Jesus). This raising up (from anistêmi, set up) as in Ac 3:22; 7:37 refers not to resurrection (verse Ac 13:34), but to the sending of Jesus (two raisings up). In the second psalm (en tôi psalmôi tôi deuterôi). Ps 2:7. D has prôtôi because the first psalm was often counted as merely introductory."

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yes, that is not in debate here.

What we are discussing is whether or not the Second Person of the Trinity is eternally the Logos or if he became the Word (the expression or Son of God).

I believe the Second Person of the Trinity is eternally the Word and became flesh and on the day He was resurrected was "begotten" (becane the Firstborn of many brethern).

this is supposed to be about the eternal Sonship of Jesus?

 

[JonC]

this is supposed to be about the eternal Sonship of Jesus?

That is where Scripture speaks of "sonship". Logos in John 1 provides Christ's identity as Hid's "son" and this is reinforced in John 3 with "begotten" or "unique", of the same "kind".

When Scrioture uses the words "today I have begotten you" it is of the Son at the Resurrection (NOT the Incarnation).

The question is not of submission but of identity. A "son" indicates "of the same". And yes, Christ has always been God, always the Word.

 

[JonC]

can also mean the Raising up of Jesus in His Coming, as it was foretold in Deut. 18:15, "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken". Acts 3:22, "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you"; 7:37, "This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.". Which is what the Greek scholar, Dr A T Robertson, among others, say, "Hath fulfilled (ekpeplêrôken). Hath filled out (ek). Unto our children (tois teknois hêmôn). The MSS. vary greatly here about hêmôn (our), some have autôn, some autôn hêmin. Westcott and Hort consider these readings "a primitive error" for hêmin (to us) taken with anastêsas Iêsoun (having for us raised up Jesus). This raising up (from anistêmi, set up) as in Ac 3:22; 7:37 refers not to resurrection (verse Ac 13:34), but to the sending of Jesus (two raisings up). In the second psalm (en tôi psalmôi tôi deuterôi). Ps 2:7. D has prôtôi because the first psalm was often counted as merely introductory."

Acts 13:33 is specifically referring to the Resurrection of Christ from the dead as the Firstborn.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Acts 13:33 is specifically referring to the Resurrection of Christ from the dead as the Firstborn.

thats only one opinion, others disagree, but we must live with this!

 

[JonC]

@SavedByGrace ,

I defined the "sonship" of Christ as logos, eternally the expression of God, the exact representation of the Father.

How do you define sonship?

 

[SavedByGrace]

begotten

I have never read of this term meaning "resurrected" other than in theology. surely no language says this?

 

[JonC]

thats only one opinion, others disagree, but we must live with this!

I am not sure. The context seems very specific in Acts 13. But I do know opinions differ.

 

[SavedByGrace]

@SavedByGrace ,

I defined the "sonship" of Christ as logos, eternally the expression of God, the exact representation of the Father.

How do you define sonship?

Incarnational as the Bible very clearly states in Luke 1:35, and elsewhere

 

[JonC]

I have never read of this term meaning "resurrected" other than in theology. surely no language says this?

It does not mean resurrection. It points to (in the Bible when applied to Christ) Jesus becoming the "Firstborn of many brethern". That is why Scripture attributes Christ being "begotten" st tge resurrection.

 

[JonC]

Incarnational as the Bible very clearly states in Luke 1:35, and elsewhere

So you interpret that passage the Word will "become" the Son of God?

What do you believe Christ was before He became this representation or son of God?

 

[JonC]

@SavedByGrace

The reason I ask these things is often people agree in meaning but disagree in words used to represent those meanings.

I cannot see that you and I disagree except with the word we use to speak of the Word or the Incarnation.

That is why it is so important to define terms.

I agree with you that that the Word did not become flesh until the Incarnation.

I think you agree with me that even before the Incarnation the Word was with God and the Word was God.

The only thing remaining is whether it is those who hold to "Sonship" or those who reject it get yo degine the word.

I really do not care enough to argue if "sonship" is a good term to define Christ as eternally the Word. What matters, IMHO, is what is taught.

 

[SavedByGrace]

So you interpret that passage the Word will "become" the Son of God?

What do you believe Christ was before He became this representation or son of God?

the Greek verb used here is, "κληθησεται", which is, Future, Passive, Indicative, third, Singular. is the writer in the Bible uses the future tense, and not the past, do you think that there is any purpose in this? This is what is said also in Hebrews 1:5, "And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" "will be", "εσομαι", again the future tense

 

[SavedByGrace]

@SavedByGrace

The reason I ask these things is often people agree in meaning but disagree in words used to represent those meanings.

I cannot see that you and I disagree except with the word we use to speak of the Word or the Incarnation.

That is why it is so important to define terms.

I agree with you that that the Word did not become flesh until the Incarnation.

I think you agree with me that even before the Incarnation the Word was with God and the Word was God.

The only thing remaining is whether it is those who hold to "Sonship" or those who reject it get yo degine the word.

I really do not care enough to argue if "sonship" is a good term to define Christ as eternally the Word. What matters, IMHO, is what is taught.

to my thinking "sonship" denotes "subordination", which I do believe Jesus took upon Himself, though remaining Almighty God, to do while on earth, when He submitted to the Father, "for a short time" (Hebrews 2:7,9). And it is only for His time on earth, that the Father was "greater than " Him.

 

[JonC]

to my thinking "sonship" denotes "subordination", which I do believe Jesus took upon Himself, though remaining Almighty God, to do while on earth, when He submitted to the Father, "for a short time" (Hebrews 2:7,9). And it is only for His time on earth, that the Father was "greater than " Him.

That is the key to what you and I are saying.

I believe that "sonship" points to a different type of relationship. I base this in the Hebrew idea of "son" as identifiable with "father" and the objection of the Jews to Jesus' claim to be the "Son of God" as it equates Christ "in kind" to the Father. I think it is obvious that the Jewish leaders did not view "sonship" to denote "subordination" as if they did Jesus identifying himself as subordinate to God would have been no issue.

But you believe that "sonship" points not to Christ's identity (not to anything ontological to Christ) but to the position he assumed as he set aside his glory to accomplish not his will but the will of the Father.

We believe the same things but differ on the words used to describe those things.

 

[37818]

9

did I even suggest this?

No. But you seem to believe He changed His deity by becoming man. Becoming man was a change.

 

[SavedByGrace]

9

No. But you seem to believe He changed His deity by becoming man. Becoming man was a change.

NEVER!

 

[percho]

Yes, that is not in debate here.

What we are discussing is whether or not the Second Person of the Trinity is eternally the Logos or if he became the Word (the expression or Son of God).

I believe the Second Person of the Trinity is eternally the Word and became flesh and on the day He was resurrected was "begotten" (becane the Firstborn of many brethern).

That is the key to what you and I are saying.

I believe that "sonship" points to a different type of relationship. I base this in the Hebrew idea of "son" as identifiable with "father" and the objection of the Jews to Jesus' claim to be the "Son of God" as it equates Christ "in kind" to the Father. I think it is obvious that the Jewish leaders did not view "sonship" to denote "subordination" as if they did Jesus identifying himself as subordinate to God would have been no issue.

But you believe that "sonship" points not to Christ's identity (not to anything ontological to Christ) but to the position he assumed as he set aside his glory to accomplish not his will but the will of the Father.

We believe the same things but differ on the words used to describe those things.

Dovetail in the following, time and relative to your thoughts. 1 Cor 15:24 then -- the end, when he may deliver up the reign to God, even the Father, when he may have made useless all rule, and all authority and power --

I always have wanted to fit, the end, in between Rev 20:14,15 and Rev 21:1 however I believe I have left some holes that need filling. I have verses I do not know what to do with.

1. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matt 28:18
2. And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. Acts 1:7
3. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Acts 2:34,35
4 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts 3:20,21

Sometimes I wonder, Who's on second?