Is the Eternal Sonship of Jesus a Biblical Concept?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Galatians 4.4 but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son
God sent forth His Son, not, the second Person of the Trinity. See also John 3.17.
 
He became the son of man at His birth, but was always the Son ofThe Father, for as the Eternal Father, He logically must have an eternal Son. He also is the everlasting Word, and then that Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
 
He became the son of man at His birth, but was always the Son ofThe Father, for as the Eternal Father, He logically must have an eternal Son. He also is the everlasting Word, and then that Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

And this entire Subordination issue arises from when Jesus was born, correct?
 
To my mind though He was very God of very God and being of one substance with the Father, yet in the covenant of redemption He acceded to be the one mediator twixt God and man and to humble himself. This was a subordination of interest not of person. In His flesh he demonstrated His subordination (not inferiority) by coming to do the will of the Father. He came because he was sent, but He was sent because He volunteered to be sent. He always did the will of the Father, because He is one with the Father.
 
In basic agreement with Cymro's thrust (above),

When the Son speaks in the Psalms, "I delight to do thy will, O my God," (Ps.40:8; cf.Heb.10:7), he does not prove he is already in, nor does then enter into, or promise any future, subordinate relation with the Father according to his divinity. This is an intra-Trinitarian agreement of the One God, established between two Persons of equally pure and extreme glory sharing a fullness of divine Being.

The incarnate Son is, according to that which is standard human nature, subordinate to God even the Father. It is by virtue of the incarnation that there is displayed a perfect, human submission to Divinity. The Second Person, therefore, is and remains forever-since according to his human nature subordinate to God the Father; but according to his divine nature remains as he has always been by that nature, namely equal in all respects with every other member of the Trinity.

The covenant of redemption does not establish the terms of relation between Father and Son. The Son, even as the Eternal Executor of the Father's will, stands in no relation of inferiority to the Father at any moment. He is the Word of God, the Expression of that Will. On what possible conception could that Word/Will be inferior to the divine Expressor? Is any man's willing inferior to... his will, or to himself? It makes no sense to talk about our own will that way; much less the divine.

The Son is the brightness of divine glory and the express image (charaktayr) of His person (hupostasis), Heb.1:3. Recognizing the ontological and economic orderliness of the Trinity and Trinitarian relations can be done apart from any admission that the Persons may be fairly described in subordinationist terms.
 
In basic agreement with Cymro's thrust (above),

When the Son speaks in the Psalms, "I delight to do thy will, O my God," (Ps.40:8; cf.Heb.10:7), he does not prove he is already in, nor does then enter into, or promise any future, subordinate relation with the Father according to his divinity. This is an intra-Trinitarian agreement of the One God, established between two Persons of equally pure and extreme glory sharing a fullness of divine Being.

The incarnate Son is, according to that which is standard human nature, subordinate to God even the Father. It is by virtue of the incarnation that there is displayed a perfect, human submission to Divinity. The Second Person, therefore, is and remains forever-since according to his human nature subordinate to God the Father; but according to his divine nature remains as he has always been by that nature, namely equal in all respects with every other member of the Trinity.

The covenant of redemption does not establish the terms of relation between Father and Son. The Son, even as the Eternal Executor of the Father's will, stands in no relation of inferiority to the Father at any moment. He is the Word of God, the Expression of that Will. On what possible conception could that Word/Will be inferior to the divine Expressor? Is any man's willing inferior to... his will, or to himself? It makes no sense to talk about our own will that way; much less the divine.

The Son is the brightness of divine glory and the express image (charaktayr) of His person (hupostasis), Heb.1:3. Recognizing the ontological and economic orderliness of the Trinity and Trinitarian relations can be done apart from any admission that the Persons may be fairly described in subordinationist terms.
Before he became born as Jesus, as the God man, he existed eternally as the Word though, correct? So the Sonship started at birth, as in the reference to Him the Son, as being born of God?
 
He was always the Son as to His divinity, he being begotten and not made; but he became the son of man by assuming our nature to Himself. Thus he became the Godman, that hypostatical union without which there could be no salvation. Two natures yet one person. He who was rich became poor that we through His poverty might become rich. This speaks of his voluntary humiliation and as a consequence our elevation from our spiritual poverty to the riches of His grace and sonship.
 
"Son" is part of the language given us by which to express the revelation of God. The second Person's sonship as to his divinity does not begin in the incarnation, but only as to his humanity does it begin there.

There is an inbuilt "inferiority" in human relations of son to father. It is an inferiority that diminishes over time; but no matter how formally equal they become, the father is always greater being both prior and progenitor, and the son not being necessary.

It is a mistake to take our understanding of this human father-son relation and "map" it onto the relations of God the Father and God the Son. The description of the human relationship is derivative, and does not inform us (at whatever convenient point to our thinking) what God is like. To take another crass example of this sort of error, we are not free to imagine God as God has a body like men (or animals) when Scripture says he has a "mighty hand," or "wings overspread." Such is not the intent of the description, and our minds must follow the intent or fall into error.

We must raise our thinking of the divine personal-relations above the human plane. What naturally constitutes a relation of inferiority here below, cannot (in the nature of their case) be conceived of in that way as it pertains to Father and Son. They have no naturally inferior relation. So we have to make the adjustment in our thinking of this Father/Son relation when it comes to divine self-revelation. This point will not "map" without concession.

Consider Is.49 in light of the covenant of redemption, which is before the world began. There, we find a "conversation" between Jehovah and his Servant. This is profound revelation. God is planning a wonderful inheritance for this One who is named his Servant, a relation that in human terms is decidedly inferior. But this conversation is taking place in eternity.

To which of the angels did he ever say, "You are my Son," Heb.1:5? He is not speaking to an angel. Is he speaking to any creature at all? In the fullness of revelation, we can be sure he is not in Ps.2:7; and so neither is he in Is.49. "Servant" and "Son" are accommodated language for us creatures, describing in our poor terms some aspect of the eternal relations. We must admit the limitations of our language, recognizing that our weaknesses do not belong to God.
 
David, I think there are a few main reasons why the question of whether or not Jesus has always been the Son causes confusion.

1. The fact that Jesus is the eternal Son of God does NOT mean he is the Son in every way that human sons are sons. This is part of what the above discussion about eternal subordination is getting at. As humans, we are used to hearing "son" and thinking of a person who must have come after his father and should obey his father. But when the Bible speaks of Jesus being the Son of his Father, it tends to emphasize how they are the same (see John 5:19-24, Colossians 1:13-17, Hebrews 1:1-3). So Jesus is not the Son because he is somehow secondary, but rather because of the principle, "Like father, like son."

2. There are a number of different ways Jesus is the Son. Foremost is how he is the eternal Son of God. But he also is the Son of Adam, the Son of Abraham, the Son of David, etc. (which we might lump together under the term "Messianic Son"). He has not always been the Messianic Son.

So when you ask the question, "Was he always the Son?" a few clarifications are needed. First, we must clarify that if we say yes we do not necessarily mean he is also subordinate. Second, we must clarify that some of the ways he is the Son were added later, when he took on the role of Messiah.

These clarifications are important. Without them, I find that people read a mix of Bible passages about Jesus' sonship and get confused. That's because they are thinking that "son" means things it doesn't, or that all aspects of sonship are the same—but this is not the case. By the way, the same kind of clarifications apply when answering equally confusing questions like, "Has Jesus always had all authority, or was he given all authority?"
 
David, I think there are a few main reasons why the question of whether or not Jesus has always been the Son causes confusion.

1. The fact that Jesus is the eternal Son of God does NOT mean he is the Son in every way that human sons are sons. This is part of what the above discussion about eternal subordination is getting at. As humans, we are used to hearing "son" and thinking of a person who must have come after his father and should obey his father. But when the Bible speaks of Jesus being the Son of his Father, it tends to emphasize how they are the same (see John 5:19-24, Colossians 1:13-17, Hebrews 1:1-3). So Jesus is not the Son because he is somehow secondary, but rather because of the principle, "Like father, like son."

2. There are a number of different ways Jesus is the Son. Foremost is how he is the eternal Son of God. But he also is the Son of Adam, the Son of Abraham, the Son of David, etc. (which we might lump together under the term "Messianic Son"). He has not always been the Messianic Son.

So when you ask the question, "Was he always the Son?" a few clarifications are needed. First, we must clarify that if we say yes we do not necessarily mean he is also subordinate. Second, we must clarify that some of the ways he is the Son were added later, when he took on the role of Messiah.

These clarifications are important. Without them, I find that people read a mix of Bible passages about Jesus' sonship and get confused. That's because they are thinking that "son" means things it doesn't, or that all aspects of sonship are the same—but this is not the case. By the way, the same kind of clarifications apply when answering equally confusing questions like, "Has Jesus always had all authority, or was he given all authority?"
Jesus in His deity was the eternal God the Son, but in regards to His humanity of being the Son of God, that was when he was first conceived and then born, correct?
 
"Son" is part of the language given us by which to express the revelation of God. The second Person's sonship as to his divinity does not begin in the incarnation, but only as to his humanity does it begin there.

There is an inbuilt "inferiority" in human relations of son to father. It is an inferiority that diminishes over time; but no matter how formally equal they become, the father is always greater being both prior and progenitor, and the son not being necessary.

It is a mistake to take our understanding of this human father-son relation and "map" it onto the relations of God the Father and God the Son. The description of the human relationship is derivative, and does not inform us (at whatever convenient point to our thinking) what God is like. To take another crass example of this sort of error, we are not free to imagine God as God has a body like men (or animals) when Scripture says he has a "mighty hand," or "wings overspread." Such is not the intent of the description, and our minds must follow the intent or fall into error.

We must raise our thinking of the divine personal-relations above the human plane. What naturally constitutes a relation of inferiority here below, cannot (in the nature of their case) be conceived of in that way as it pertains to Father and Son. They have no naturally inferior relation. So we have to make the adjustment in our thinking of this Father/Son relation when it comes to divine self-revelation. This point will not "map" without concession.

Consider Is.49 in light of the covenant of redemption, which is before the world began. There, we find a "conversation" between Jehovah and his Servant. This is profound revelation. God is planning a wonderful inheritance for this One who is named his Servant, a relation that in human terms is decidedly inferior. But this conversation is taking place in eternity.

To which of the angels did he ever say, "You are my Son," Heb.1:5? He is not speaking to an angel. Is he speaking to any creature at all? In the fullness of revelation, we can be sure he is not in Ps.2:7; and so neither is he in Is.49. "Servant" and "Son" are accommodated language for us creatures, describing in our poor terms some aspect of the eternal relations. We must admit the limitations of our language, recognizing that our weaknesses do not belong to God.
My current understanding is that the Lord Jesus agreed to be subordinate to the father while here upon the earth in the Incarnation, but that was only during the time was here, and once ascended back to heaven, went back to the same relationship as he had before the Incarnation.

The Holy Spirit though is still subordinate to the Father and Jesus, as He exalts Jesus over Himself?
 
My current understanding is that the Lord Jesus agreed to be subordinate to the father while here upon the earth in the Incarnation, but that was only during the time was here, and once ascended back to heaven, went back to the same relationship as he had before the Incarnation.

The Holy Spirit though is still subordinate to the Father and Jesus, as He exalts Jesus over Himself?
John Murray (Collected Writings, 3:236) captures the sense of Philippians 2:5-8:
"There is also the dignity of his station, 'equal with God.' He was on an equality with God. This equality is not an accession either by robbery or attainment. He did not consider his being on an equality with God something he had gained or was to gain. It was not something of precarious tenure; it was the consequence of his being and continuing to be in the form of God and, therefore, his natively, essentially, and immutably. The thought of the clauses may be paraphrased thus:

being in the form of God and, therefore, not considering his being on an equality with God a prize or booty but an inalienable possession, he made himself of no reputation."​

In other words, the emphasis falls upon the fact that equality is something in rightful possession, not something to be possessed.

Our Lord on earth set aside His divine prerogatives, submitting to His Father's will, just as man should submit in everything to God. We might say that Jesus acted by means of the Spirit's power, and not directly by His own divine ability or prerogatives.

No Person of the Trinity is subordinate in any ontological sense. There are not lesser Gods within the Trinity. Subordination arises as to the economy of the Godhead, the roles of the Persons therein.
 
Jesus in His deity was the eternal God the Son, but in regards to His humanity of being the Son of God, that was when he was first conceived and then born, correct?

I would not phrase it that way.

You are right that with many of the hard-to-understand truths about Jesus, it helps to consider his divine nature and his human nature separately. But in this case, I think that will only muddy things. I would simply consider the difference between who Jesus always has been and what he came to do beginning at one point in history.

1. Who is Jesus always? The eternal Son of God.

2. What did Jesus come to do at one point in time? To be the Son of Man, Son of David, etc.—the Messiah who saves us. Part of being this Savior requires him to be God, so this way of being the Son still belongs to the whole person. It's more about a specific role Jesus took on, not directly about the human nature he took on.

So I talk about the different ways Jesus is a certain sort of Son, many of them added when he took on the role of Messiah. I think that cuts to the point better than a discussion of his natures. But I also admit I am far from an expert in negotiating the theological terms commonly used to describe all this. I tend to look for the simplest way to make a point, which sometimes isn't the most precise. Others here may have more exact phrasing to add.
 
John Murray (Collected Writings, 3:236) captures the sense of Philippians 2:5-8:
"There is also the dignity of his station, 'equal with God.' He was on an equality with God. This equality is not an accession either by robbery or attainment. He did not consider his being on an equality with God something he had gained or was to gain. It was not something of precarious tenure; it was the consequence of his being and continuing to be in the form of God and, therefore, his natively, essentially, and immutably. The thought of the clauses may be paraphrased thus:

being in the form of God and, therefore, not considering his being on an equality with God a prize or booty but an inalienable possession, he made himself of no reputation."​

In other words, the emphasis falls upon the fact that equality is something in rightful possession, not something to be possessed.

Our Lord on earth set aside His divine prerogatives, submitting to His Father's will, just as man should submit in everything to God. We might say that Jesus acted by means of the Spirit's power, and not directly by His own divine ability or prerogatives.

No Person of the Trinity is subordinate in any ontological sense. There are not lesser Gods within the Trinity. Subordination arises as to the economy of the Godhead, the roles of the Persons therein.
So Jesus, while here upon the earth, laid aside using His Divine attributes, and relied totally upon the Holy Spirit working in and Through Him, to do the miracles and signs to Him being the Messiah sent from God?
 
I would not phrase it that way.

You are right that with many of the hard-to-understand truths about Jesus, it helps to consider his divine nature and his human nature separately. But in this case, I think that will only muddy things. I would simply consider the difference between who Jesus always has been and what he came to do beginning at one point in history.

1. Who is Jesus always? The eternal Son of God.

2. What did Jesus come to do at one point in time? To be the Son of Man, Son of David, etc.—the Messiah who saves us. Part of being this Savior requires him to be God, so this way of being the Son still belongs to the whole person. It's more about a specific role Jesus took on, not directly about the human nature he took on.

So I talk about the different ways Jesus is a certain sort of Son, many of them added when he took on the role of Messiah. I think that cuts to the point better than a discussion of his natures. But I also admit I am far from an expert in negotiating the theological terms commonly used to describe all this. I tend to look for the simplest way to make a point, which sometimes isn't the most precise. Others here may have more exact phrasing to add.
I think that your way here is very good, as I don't want to press the 2 natures of Jesus to the extreme of Him just being one or the other, like flipping back and forth.
 
So Jesus, while here upon the earth, laid aside using His Divine attributes, and relied totally upon the Holy Spirit working in and Through Him, to do the miracles and signs to Him being the Messiah sent from God?

I should have been more detailed than just saying:
"We might say that Jesus acted by means of the Spirit's power, and not directly by His own divine ability or prerogatives."

My apologies for my sloppiness. Let me try again.

John Calvin, Institutes, I. xiii. 13:
"I admit that similar and equal miracles were performed by the prophets and apostles; but there is this very essential difference, that they dispensed the gifts of God as his ministers, whereas he exerted his own inherent might. Sometimes, indeed, he used prayer, that he might ascribe glory to the Father, but we see that for the most part his own proper power is displayed. And how should not he be the true author of miracles, who, of his own authority, commissions others to perform them? For the Evangelist relates that he gave power to the apostles to cast out devils, cure the lepers, raise the dead, &c. And they, by the mode in which they performed this ministry, showed plainly that their whole power was derived from Christ. 'In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,' says Peter (Acts 3:6), 'rise up and walk.' It is not surprising, then, that Christ appealed to his miracles in order to subdue the unbelief of the Jews, inasmuch as these were performed by his own energy, and therefore bore the most ample testimony to his divinity."​

We need to distinguish Our Lord working according to the human nature and His divine nature.
John 2:11, "manifested forth His glory"
John 10:30, "I and my Father are one."

We must maintain the unio personalis:
The one Person acts and does according to what is proper to each nature of the Person, divine and human.

Natures
do not act, they simply are
. Persons do, act. All that the the man Jesus did was as a man in perfect submission to the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. The Person acted in His humanity in these cases.

So context is important. There are occasions wherein Our Lord acted according to His humanity empowered by the fullness of the Holy Spirit within Him following His baptism. Similarly, as above, the divine Son of God acted according to His divinity. He was seen to be God because only God could do what He did.

The miracles performed by Our Lord give a witness to a man in perfect subjection to the Holy Spirit. These miracles also give a witness to He who is divine. Miracles are contrary to the created order we are part of and bound to. Miracles, by definition, are done by God.

We must be careful here. Jesus' miracles per the Holy Spirit as a man are at the same time exercised by His divine power. We cannot turn off one nature in favor of the other, for the Person acts as a unified wholeness. It is not just the man or the God acting, as if one nature is suddenly disabled, rather it is the Person acting.

We have to keep both views in mind lest we fall into the heresies denounced at Chalcedon.

Worth a read:
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...10/09/Warfield-Imitating-the-Incarnation2.pdf
 
We must maintain the unio personalis:
The one Person acts and does according to what is proper to each nature of the Person, divine and human.

Natures
do not act, they simply are
. Persons do, act. All that the the man Jesus did was as a man in perfect submission to the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. The Person acted in His humanity in these cases.

That's what I've been trying to say.
 
Calvin is really good here (and has several pages on this); I'd suggest reading those sections of the Institutes.
 
Just wanted to say that this is a basic doctrine and is taught in our Shorter Catechism.

Q 21: Who is the Redeemer of God’ s elect?
A: The only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Tim. 2:5–6) who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, (John 1:14, Gal. 4:4) and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever. (Rom. 9:5, Luke 1:35, Col. 2:9, Heb. 7:24–25)

Q 22: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, (Heb. 2:14,16, Heb. 10:5) and a reasonable soul, (Matt. 26:38) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, (Luke 1:27,31,35,42, Gal. 4:4) yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15, Heb. 7:26)

Feel free to peruse the Scripture Proofs given by the Catechism. This is a basic doctrine to be understood by even the children.
 
I should have been more detailed than just saying:
"We might say that Jesus acted by means of the Spirit's power, and not directly by His own divine ability or prerogatives."

My apologies for my sloppiness. Let me try again.

John Calvin, Institutes, I. xiii. 13:
"I admit that similar and equal miracles were performed by the prophets and apostles; but there is this very essential difference, that they dispensed the gifts of God as his ministers, whereas he exerted his own inherent might. Sometimes, indeed, he used prayer, that he might ascribe glory to the Father, but we see that for the most part his own proper power is displayed. And how should not he be the true author of miracles, who, of his own authority, commissions others to perform them? For the Evangelist relates that he gave power to the apostles to cast out devils, cure the lepers, raise the dead, &c. And they, by the mode in which they performed this ministry, showed plainly that their whole power was derived from Christ. 'In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,' says Peter (Acts 3:6), 'rise up and walk.' It is not surprising, then, that Christ appealed to his miracles in order to subdue the unbelief of the Jews, inasmuch as these were performed by his own energy, and therefore bore the most ample testimony to his divinity."​

We need to distinguish Our Lord working according to the human nature and His divine nature.
John 2:11, "manifested forth His glory"
John 10:30, "I and my Father are one."

We must maintain the unio personalis:
The one Person acts and does according to what is proper to each nature of the Person, divine and human.

Natures
do not act, they simply are
. Persons do, act. All that the the man Jesus did was as a man in perfect submission to the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. The Person acted in His humanity in these cases.

So context is important. There are occasions wherein Our Lord acted according to His humanity empowered by the fullness of the Holy Spirit within Him following His baptism. Similarly, as above, the divine Son of God acted according to His divinity. He was seen to be God because only God could do what He did.

The miracles performed by Our Lord give a witness to a man in perfect subjection to the Holy Spirit. These miracles also give a witness to He who is divine. Miracles are contrary to the created order we are part of and bound to. Miracles, by definition, are done by God.

We must be careful here. Jesus' miracles per the Holy Spirit as a man are at the same time exercised by His divine power. We cannot turn off one nature in favor of the other, for the Person acts as a unified wholeness. It is not just the man or the God acting, as if one nature is suddenly disabled, rather it is the Person acting.

We have to keep both views in mind lest we fall into the heresies denounced at Chalcedon.

Worth a read:
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...10/09/Warfield-Imitating-the-Incarnation2.pdf
My understanding of what Calvin and you are stating here is that regardless if Jesus was using the Holy spirit to do the miracles, or his own divine attributes within Himself, its always being done by the person of Jesus, as he is both divine and human in natures, but still just One Person. its not that Jesus kept flipping back and forth from divine nature to human nature, as he is But One person all of the time, with both natures in Him, but always in perfect union and harmony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top