Q: #631. Has Jesus Christ always been the Son of God?
A: There are two views on this subject. One is called “Eternal Sonship” and the other is called “Incarnational Sonship.” Eternal Sonship (“ES” going forward) teaches that Jesus Christ has indeed always been the Son of God, but Incarnational Sonship (“IS” going forward) teaches that Jesus Christ did not become the Son of God until after His birth. Let me explain both views a little more deeply.
Historically, Eternal Sonship (“ES”) has been been the prominent viewpoint going back to the first few centuries A.D. If you have ever said the “Nicene Creed” in church, you have affirmed this viewpoint (it is also a part of the “Constantinople, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian” Creeds). Virtually all prominent early church fathers supported this view.
On the other hand, Incarnational Sonship (“IS”) is a more recent viewpoint. Over the last few centuries, several prominent scholars have supported and taught this including Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Dr. Walter Martin, and John MacArthur. MacArthur taught this for about the first half of his ministry before famously recanting. (You can put “John MacArthur affirms Eternal Sonship” in a search engine to find where he does this.)
In MacArthur’s article he explains why he originally held this view:
—–
“My earlier position arose out of my study of Hebrews 1:5, which appears to speak of the Father’s begetting the Son as an event that takes place at a point in time: “This day have I begotten thee”; “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son” (emphasis added).
That verse presents some very difficult concepts. “Begetting” normally speaks of a person’s origin. Moreover, sons are generally subordinate to their fathers. I therefore found it difficult to see how an eternal Father-Son relationship could be compatible with perfect equality and eternality among the Persons of the Trinity. “Sonship,” I concluded, bespeaks the place of voluntary submission to which Christ condescended at His incarnation (cf. Phil. 2:5-8; John 5:19).
My aim was to defend, not in any way to undermine, Christ’s absolute deity and eternality. And, I endeavored from the beginning to make that as clear as possible.”
—–
There is much more to his recantation, which I would urge you to read, but I believe MacArthur encapsulates the reason why most who hold the “IS” view do so. What led me to write this study was because a prominent pastor that I listen to on a fairly regular basis recently espoused it.
I believe MacArthur’s last sentence is crucial to understand, and the pastor I listen to said the same. Those who hold to this view “generally” do not deny what “most” consider “essentials of the Christian faith.” They do not deny the eternality of Christ, nor do they deny His deity (that He is God). They also affirm the triune nature of God. However, they believe that Christ did not become the “Son of God” until after His “incarnation” (when He was born).
Most believe that who Christ was before this can be found in (Jn 1:1), which says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In other words, Christ was the “Word” (Gr: “logos“) until He was born, and then He became the “Son of God.”
***Note: A question I have regarding this: “If Christ stopped being the “Word” at His incarnation, and instead became the Son, why does (Rev 19:13) call Jesus the “Word” in the future?
While I don’t “fully” understand all aspects of this debate, it appears to me that a big part of the problem between the two views comes down to: Is “Son of God” a “title,” or a “name?” Logically, a “name” is permanent, but a “title” can change.
In reading the views of both sides, many “ES” adherents accuse the “IS” adherents of heresy (even blasphemy) because they are trying to erase the eternal primary name of Christ (the “Son”). On the other side, the “IS” adherents accuse the “ES” adherents of heresy as well. Quoting Adam Clarke, “This doctrine of the eternal Sonship…., I must and do consider as an awful heresy.” And, in another place says: “Here, I trust, I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous.” Clarke then goes on to list 5 reasons why.
One of those reasons that applies to our discussion here is basically the same as what MacArthur said in the quote above. (Paraphrasing Clarke), the term “Son” implies a beginning, and because Christ is God, He is eternal and has no beginning. Therefore, to say both are true is illogical. (It is like saying, “Christ had an eternal beginning.”)
Sooo much more could be said about both the “ES” and “IS” views (I have pages of notes!). However, my goal is, as ALWAYS, which view best lines up with the BIBLE? In this regard, I personally believe the “Eternal Sonship” view has the stronger Biblical evidence supporting it. The “Incarnational Sonship” view appears to be supported by only a few verses which “seem” to show the “Father / Son” titles as something that would happen in the future (after Jesus’ birth / when He was “begotten”). (***Note: I italicize “seem” because “ES” scholars have explanations for why the “IS” people are interpretating the verses they use wrongly, and the “IS” scholars do the same to the “ES” scholars.)
Here are the few verses (I could find) that “IS” scholars use to defend their viewpoint:
(Ps 2:7) “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (A prophetic verse) (Acts 13:33 quotes this, and applies it to Jesus) (Also quoted in Heb 5:5)
(Heb 1:5)(quotes and adds to Ps 2:7) “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” (“will / shall” future tense)
(Lk 1:35) “And the angel answered and said unto her (Mary), The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (“shall” future tense)
(2 Sam 7:14) “I (God) will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:” (“will / shall” future tense) (***Note: While [Heb 1:5 above] quotes this as ultimately being fulfilled Jesus, in context, God speaking to David about Solomon here [see: 1 Chr 17:13, 1 Chr 28:6], because obviously Jesus did not “commit iniquity.”)
***Note: And again (rephrasing what MacArthur said above), “IS” defenders would argue the following regarding Jesus being “begotten:” #1. Logic dictates that a “father” must precede a “son.” This being the case, how could Jesus Christ (as “Son”) be eternal? #2. Logic dictates that a son is subordinate to a father. This being the case, how could Jesus Christ (as “Son”) be equal to the Father (as it is said He is in: Jn 5:17-18, Jn 10:30, Phil 2:5-6)?
—–
Now, to the defense of the traditional Eternal Sonship viewpoint. Most of these below show that Christ has “always” been the “Son,” and was the “Son” before His incarnation.
#1. (Mk 12:1-12 – “The Parable Of The Vineyard Owner”) (This is the most convincing to me)
For sake of space, I will not post the whole parable (You should read it.) But, in short, the “vineyard owner” is God the Father. The “vinedressers” are the Jewish leaders. The “servants” that the “vineyard owner” sent to the “vinedressers” (that they beat and murdered) are the Old Testament prophets. Afterwards, (Mk 12:6) says, “Therefore still having one son, his beloved, he (the vineyard owner) also sent him to them last, saying, “They will respect my son.” The “vinedressers” then murdered him too (referring to Jesus being crucified) (Mk 12:7-8).
For our discussion, the point of this parable is to note that the “vineyard owner” (God the Father) made the decision to “SEND” His SON (Jesus Christ) to them. This points to Christ being the Son before His incarnation (before He was born).
#2. (Prov 30:4)(NKJV) “Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know?” No explanation is really needed for this verse showing Christ to be the Son in the Old Testament! What is His name = God the Father / what is His Son’s name = God the Son (Christ).
#3. Melchizedek! The story of Melchizedek can be found in (Gen 14:18-20). Who was Melchizedek? There is some debate on this, and I share my view here. However, in relation to our discussion, the description of Melchizedek in (Heb 7:3) is key: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Based upon this verse, many believe Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ as the “Son of God” (called a “theophany” or Christophany”). If true, this “clearly” shows Christ being referred to as the “Son of God” before His incarnation. However, even if it was not a theophany, as I believe (see above link), it still points to the “Son” existing in the Old Testament.
#4. (Dan 3:25) If you love a great Old Testament Bible story, the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in (Dan Ch. 3) is one of the best! In short, when the 3 above men disobeyed King Nebuchadnezzar, they were thrown into a fiery furnace. In the fire, a fourth “man” appeared with them, and when the king saw him, he described him as “like the Son of God.” Nearly every scholar believes this was an Old Testament appearance of Jesus Christ (a theophany).
Why Nebuchadnezzar gave the fourth man the name “Son of God” we do not know. Did God somehow reveal this to the king? It is worth noting that in several verses, God says Nebuchadnezzar was His “servant” (Jer 25:9)(Jer 27:6))(Jer 43:10), and after this incident, Nebuchadnezzar did recognize Daniel’s God as the “God of gods” (Dan 2:47)(also see: Dan 3:28-29), the “Most High God” (Dan 4:2,34), and the “King of heaven” (Dan 4:37).
#5. Numerous New Testament verses mention that the “Son of God” was “sent” to earth, clearly telling us that Jesus Christ was named the “Son of God” before His incarnation. Here are a few:
(Gal 4:4) “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law…” (***Note: Verse 6 adds that “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son.” The “Spirit” has “eternally” been named the “Spirit” [Heb 9:14, Gen 1:2].)
(1 Jn 4:9-10) “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (10) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
(Jn 5:22-23) “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: (23) That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him (the Son). (all italics mine) (More “sent” verses below in #8.)
#6. It was the “Son” who “created” (italics = “past tense”) all things (implying He was named the “Son” at creation).
(Heb 1:2) “(God) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made (past tense) the worlds;”
(Col 1:13-17) “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: (verses 14-17 continue to speak of the “Son”) (14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (16) For by him (the Son) were all things created (past tense), that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created (past tense) by him (the Son), and for him (the Son): (17) And he (the Son) is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (all italics mine)
#7. (1 Jn 3:8) “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”
The Greek word “phaneroo” is used for “manifested” in this verse. A number of translations of the Bible (i.e. NASB, ESV, NIV) translate it as “appeared.” This Greek word comes from the root “phaneros,” defined in Strong’s as: “open to sight, visible.” In other words, the “Son of God” was made “open to sight, visible, appeared that He might destroy the works of the devil.” This implies that He had the name “Son of God” when He “came” to do this. (Also see: 1 Jn 2:28, 1 Jn 3:5, 1 Jn 4:9)
***Big Note: (1 Jn 1:1-2)(NKJV) “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life – (2) the life was manifested (“phaneroo“), and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested in us -“
Notice here that the “WORD of life was manifested.” As mentioned above, many “IS” people say that Christ was the “Word” in the Old Testament, but transitioned to a new “title” (the “Son of God”) at His incarnation (“birth”). These two verses clearly tell us that Christ was “still” identified as the “Word” AFTER He “was manifested” (“appeared”)! In other words, Christ did not stop being “the Word” to become “the Son.” And, as mentioned above, this points to “the Word / Son of God” as being “names” of Christ (from eternity), not “titles” of Christ (which changed). (***Again, keeping in mind that Rev 19:13 identifies Christ by the name “The Word Of God” in the end times.)
#8. As I ended the “defenses of the “IS” viewpoint” above with a statement on the “illogic” of the “Eternal Father and Son” viewpoint, I now end the “defenses of the “ES” viewpoint” with the “illogic” of the “Incarnational Father and Son” viewpoint.
In particular, I want to focus on the “Father” aspect. “IS” defenders don’t talk as much about this, but if “God the Son” did not become the “Son” until His incarnation (birth), logic dictates that “God the Father” did not become the “Father” until the incarnation either (How could He be the Father if there was no Son?) But, there are MANY verses showing “God the Father” existing before the incarnation of Christ. Let me start with (1 Jn 1:1-2), which I just posted above:
(1 Jn 1:1-2) “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (2) (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)”
(Jn 1:18) Jesus says, “No man has seen God at any time but the Son.” Jesus makes it clear who “God” is in this verse by following with (Jn 6:46) “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only He has seen the Father.” (Also see: Jn 5:37, 1 Jn 4:12, 1 Tim 6:16)
The “God who cannot be seen” is also mentioned in the Old Testament. (Ex 33:20)(NKJV) “But He (God) said, You cannot see my face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” Who is the God who “cannot be seen” here? Jesus tells us above: the Father! “God the Father” has existed for all eternity, but has “not been seen.”
(Jn 17:5) “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” In this verse, Jesus tells us that “the Father” had glory before the world was.
(Jn 17:24) “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” Jesus tells us here that “the Father” loved Him before the foundation of the world. (Also see: Eph 1:3-4)
In addition, we have many verses saying that (God) the Father “sent” the “Son” to earth, showing that He existed as the Father before the “incarnation.” I posted 3 of these above (Gal 4:4)(1 Jn 4:9-10)(Jn 5:22-23) in point # 5. Here are others: (Jn 3:16-17)(Jn 6:38-40,43)(Jn 8:16,18,42)(Jn 10:36)(Jn 12:49)(Jn 14:24)(Jn 16:28)(Jn 17:21,25)(Jn 20:21)(Rom 8:3)(1 Jn 4:14).
Here are a few other verses used to defend the “ES” viewpoint: (Jn 17:24,26)(Mt 11:27)(1 Jn 5:20)(Jn 5:17)(Jn 11:27).
—–
***Note: I should add here that within the “IS” viewpoint, not all believe that Christ became the Son “immediately” after He was born. Some believe He became the “Son” at His baptism (Mt 3:17)(Mk 1:10)(Lk 3:22), others at His resurrection (Rom 1:1-4)(Acts 13:32-33), and others at His ascension (Heb 1:3-4).
In closing, this is a serious, and important issue. But, is this an issue that Christians should “divide” over? Some have gone that far, including men listed in this study (I see more evidence this applies to “ES” defenders). John Gill, easily the most vocal in his hated for “IS” doctrine once stated: “Now since it appears that all the sound and orthodox writers have unanimously declared for the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ in all ages, and that those only of an unsound mind and judgment, and corrupt in other things as well as this, and many of them men of impure lives and vile principles, have declared against it,” At one point, Gill removed a man from his church for holding the “IS” view. (Above quote taken from Gill’s dissertation on “The Eternal Sonship of Christ” if you want to read a LONG defense of “ES.”)
One recent “ES” defender said that even though John MacArthur recanted his previous views on “IS,” his teachings should be avoided because of those previous views. On the other side, Dr. Walter Martin said the “ES” viewpoint was conceived by the Roman Catholic Church, and skews a proper view of the trinity. And, I stated Adam Clarke’s views on “ES” above. Both sides have accused the other of “blasphemy” and “heresy.” Is this valid?
While I have come away from this study even more solidified in my “ES” belief, I am still going to read the commentaries of John Gill and Adam Clarke. I am still going to read my MacArthur Study Bible. I am keeping my book from Walter Martin. All of these men are dead now, and I firmly believe they are with the “Son of God” at this moment. And, I plan to keep listening to the pastor whose “IS” view led me to write this study.
Related: