Is The Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ Biblical? Part 1

This doctrine deals with the relationship between the First and Second Persons in the Godhead, Who are otherwise known to us as the Father and the Son. The question given above is of the utmost importance, if we desire to understand the Biblical teaching of God the Father and God the Son. Not too long ago I was charged with heresy, because I said that I did not believe in the Eternal Son-ship of Jesus Christ. This doctrine teaches that Jesus Christ always was the Son of the Father, something that He has been from all eternity. This is the position of many Biblical scholars, which has been held from very early times. On the other side we have, the Son-ship of Jesus Christ actually only beginning at His birth from the Virgin Mary, which therefore denies the eternity of His Son-ship. It is this second view, as we shall see, is the Biblical position on this subject. For us to get a clear understanding on this subject, we have to take into account, with the Eternal Son-ship, the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son. This teaches that, outside of time, the Father, by an eternal act, eternally begets the Son. As we go into this study, what this means will become more apparent. But, it must be said here, that, those who accept the doctrine of the Eternal Son-ship, cannot do so without accepting the Eternal Generation. And this is only the beginning of the problems!

"The eternal sonship of Christ. The Scriptures represent Christ as eternally the Son of God by eternal generation. While it must be admitted that the nature of the sonship and the nature of the generation are unique, being eternal, sonship has been used in the Bible to represent the relationship between the first Person and the second Person"

(Dr John F Walvoord; Jesus Christ our Lord, p.41)

There can be no doubt that both doctrines have to be taken together, as it is impossible to have the one without the other. Thus, we have J C Philpot, in his book on the Eternal Sonship of Christ, declare:

"Believing in a Trinity of Persons, in the unity of the divine Essence, we say that the Father is a Father as begetting; the Son as a Son as begotten; and the Holy Spirit as a Spirit as proceeding...to sum up the whole in a few words, it is in His Person, not in his Essence, that He is the only-begotten Son of God" (page 48)

To understand what Mr Philpot is arriving at, I shall further quote from his book, where he is quoting from Dr John Gill:

"To come to the point: it is the personal relations or distinctive relative properties, which belong to each Person which distinguish them from one another; as paternity in the First Person, filiation in the Second, and spiration in the Third; or, more plainly, it is begetting (Ps.2:7) which peculiarly belongs to the First, and is never ascribed to the Second and Third, which distinguishes Him from them both, and gives Him, with great propriety, the Name of the Father: and it is being begotten, that is the personal relation, or relative property of the Second Person, hence called 'the only-begotten of the Father' (John 1:14)" (ibid).

The Father alone is seen by many Christians, to be the Source of all live, which He imparts through His Son Jesus Christ. Thus the Father is referred to as, "the Fount or Source of Godhead, from Whom by eternal Generation and Procession respective, the Son and the Spirit derive their Personal being" (Dr H P Liddon; The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, p.422). If this is the true Biblical position on the Persons of the Godhead, then we are left with many great problems, which contradict the teachings of the Holy Bible.

The Eternal Son-ship of Jesus Christ, as we have already seen, presupposes His Eternal Generation from the Father, whereby He is known as His Son. Both of these doctrines clearly make Jesus Christ subordinate to the Father, thereby making him into someone Who is inferior to the Father, and which would deny the co-equality of the Father and the Son. I am aware that those who maintain these doctrines, actually try and deny that they teach an inferiority between the Father and the Son, but, this is not so.

For us to understand these doctrines, we need to see from where they begin. Before the New Testament was written, the Logos doctrine was to be found in the writings of the Jewish "thinker", Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C.-A.D.50), in whose writings we find, "The metaphor of Divine 'begetting'" (Dr W F Howard; Christianity According to St John, 198), used of the creation of the Logos (ibid). To Philo, the Logos was only the mediator through whom God created all things (ibid, pp.3738), but was never considered to be a personal being. Philo also referred to the Logos as a "second god", by whom God is known to man (see, F J Foakes Jackson; The History of the Christian Church, pp.155-156). Philo's "confusion of ideas was felt by Christian theologians, some of whom fell into the error of making the Logos an inferior God, whilst others went to the opposite extreme, in declaring that God's Word had no personal existence, but was merely a manifestation of His nature" (ibid, p.156). Some of these theologians who adopted these errors of Philo, were, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, who was also from Alexandria. It is the last named, who had, and still has, a far reaching influence on the theology of the Church, especially on the Person of Jesus Christ. We know from the writings of Origen, that he was "an admirer of Philo" (J N D Kelly; Early Christian Doctrines, p.73), and that he actually borrows Philo's expression of the Logos, where he calls Him "a second God"! (J F Bethune-Baker; Early History of Christian Doctrine, p.148).

This is not all that Origen said of the Logos, but also "taught that the essence of the Father and of the Son was not the same, but that there was a difference of essence, thus paving the way for Arianism" (Foakes Jackson, p.163). Origen was also the most prominent proponent for the doctrine of the Eternal Generation, a phrase which he coined. He said, "Who...can suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed even for a moment without heaving generated this Wisdom (which is His Only-begotten Son)...His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliance which is produced from the sun...The Father did not beget the Son and let Him go from the Source of His generation" (Bethune-Baker, p.147). The Father, according to Origen alone can properly be described as being "unoriginated", that is, He does not derive His being from any other. The Son, on the other hand, cannot be "unoriginated", since "His deity is derivative, and He is thus a 'secondary God" (Kelly, p.128). Now, the very fact that the Father is the Source of the Son's life, as touching His Deity, can only mean that the Father is Superior to the Son, thereby making the Son eternally subordinate to the Father!

There is not a single instance in Scripture, where we read of this heresy, that the Father alone is "unoriginated" (unbegotten), as God, whereas the Son has His being from the Father. Origen, like others after him, based their ideas, not upon the Word of God, but, by following the teachings of Philo, as the language of these theologians clearly indicate. I shall come back to deal with some of the Scriptures that are claimed to teach these doctrines.

The teaching of Origen, especially on the Person of Jesus Christ, was adopted by not a few orthodox theologians, so much so, that even the champion of the Council of Nicaea (A.D.325), Athanasius, who was one of the foremost of the orthodox party, against the fight of Arianism, himself fell into the errors of the heretic Origen. He also refers to the Father as the "fountain", and the Son as the "stream", and says that "the Godhead pours itself, without division, from the Father into the Son...He is begotten from eternity of the unbegotten Father" (Dr P Schaff; History of the Christian Church, vol.II, p.657-658). Language which he no doubt borrows from Origen. Now, since Athanasius was the leader of the orthodox party at this Council, the Creed that was drawn up, would no doubt reflect his Christology. Thus, when we read in this Creed, "Begotten of the Father before all worlds", it is based on the concept that the father alone is "unbegotten", and "without beginning", whereas both phrases are not true of the Son. (see, A P Forbes; A Short Explanation of the Nicene Creed, p.121). Much of the language in this Creed, phrases such as, "God of God", "Light of Light", "begotten of the Father", etc, all teach the subordination of Jesus Christ to the Father. If the Father alone has no Origin, but the Son has His from the Father, then it can only mean that both Persons cannot be co-equal, as this would require that the Father and the Son, are both "Unbegotten", that is, have no beginning as touching their Godhead. It is on this point that I would agree with Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra (died, A.D.374), who was a strong defender of the orthodox party at Nicaea, where he "wished to hold fast the true deity of Jesus Christ without falling under the charge of Subordinationism. He granted the Arians right in their assertion that the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, involves the subordination of the Son, and is incompatible with His own eternity" (Schaff, p.652). There can be no doubt that in this Marcellus is correct, as this doctrine does call the eternity of the Son into question. I have no doubt, that the Jehovah's Witness will readily accept the doctrines of the Eternal Son-ship and Eternal Generation of Jesus Christ, as both clearly make Him out to be subordinate to the Father, something the teach. This in itself should make us take note, that these doctrines are acceptable to the heretics!

 

about 35 years ago when I used to live in London, by some friends at Church, who really themselves did not understand this teaching, but argued from what they had read in some books, like the majority still to these days!

 

and Eternal Generation...ALL UNBIBLICAL!

 

yeah, these are also fallen, fallible humans! You and I can write theological textbooks, I am sure, and they will contain things that are true, and otherwise!

 

I cannot agree with the ALL, as there are a great deal who do not!