Eternal Son of God or The Word Incarnate for Our Sake?

Eternal Son of God

The eternal existence of the second person raises a question regarding the relationship he had within the Godhead. As the second person of the Trinity (or “the Word,” as John 1:1 speaks of him), he existed from eternity past. But did he always in eternity past exist as Son? Two major views have arisen: eternal sonship and incarnational sonship.

Hebrews 1:5, at first glance, appears to speak of the Father’s begetting the Son as an event that takes place at a point in time: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” and “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” That verse presents some very difficult concepts. Begetting normally speaks of a person’s origin. Moreover, sons are generally subordinate to their fathers. Therefore, the text appears to speak of something incompatible with an eternal Father-Son relationship, which demands that perfect equality and eternality must exist among the persons of the Trinity. The incarnational sonship line of reasoning concludes that sonship indicates the place of voluntary submission to which Christ condescended at his incarnation (see John 5:18; Phil. 2:5–8).

The eternal sonship view rests on the observation that the title Son of God, when applied to Christ in Scripture, seems to always speak of his essential deity and absolute equality with God, not his voluntary subordination. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’s time understood this. John 5:18 says that they sought the death penalty against Jesus, charging him with blasphemy “because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” In that culture, a dignitary’s adult son was deemed equal in stature and privilege with his father. The same deference demanded by a king was afforded to his adult son. The son was, after all, of the very same essence as his father, heir to all the father’s rights and privileges—and therefore equal in every significant regard. So when Jesus was called “Son of God,” it was understood categorically by all as a title of deity, declaring him equal with God and (more significantly) of the same essence as the Father. That is precisely why the Jewish leaders regarded the title Son of God the ultimate high blasphemy.

If Jesus’s sonship signifies his deity? and absolute equality with the Father, it cannot be a title that pertains only to his incarnation. In fact, the main gist of what is meant by sonship (and certainly this would include Jesus’s divine essence) must pertain to the eternal attributes of Christ, not merely the humanity he assumed.

The begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though, at first glance, Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones (“today I have begotten you”), the context of Psalm 2:7 surely refers to the eternal “decree” of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting Psalm 2 speaks of is also something that pertains to eternity rather than to a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal.

Orthodox theologians since the First Council of Constantinople (381) have recognized this, and when dealing with the sonship of Christ, they employ the term eternal generation—which is an admittedly difficult expression. In Spurgeon’s words, it is “a term that does not convey to us any great meaning; it simply covers up our ignorance.” Yet the concept itself is biblical. Scripture refers to Christ as “the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14; see 1:18; 3:16, 18). The Greek word translated “the only Son” (ESV; “only begotten,” KJV, NASB) is monogenēs. The thrust of its meaning has to do with Christ’s utter uniqueness. Literally, it may be rendered “one of a kind”—and yet it also clearly signifies that he is of the very same essence as the Father. Therefore, while monogenēs does not explicitly imply generation, it nevertheless coheres with the biblical concept (cf. Ps. 2:7; John 5:26), for it is precisely his eternal generation that makes Christ the unique Son of the Father.

To say that Christ is “begotten” is itself a difficult concept. Within the realm of creation, the term begotten speaks of the origin of one’s offspring. The begetting of a son denotes his conception—the point at which he comes into being. Some thus assume that “only begotten” refers to the conception of the human Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Yet Matthew 1:20 attributes the conception of the incarnate Christ to the Holy Spirit, not to God the Father. The begetting referred to in Psalm 2:7 and John 1:14 clearly refers to something more than the conception of Christ’s humanity in Mary’s womb.

Indeed, there is another, more vital, significance to the idea of begetting than merely the origin of one’s offspring. In the design of God, each creature begets offspring “according to its kind” (Gen. 1:11–12, 21–25). The offspring bear the exact likeness of the parent. The fact that a son is generated by the father guarantees that the son shares the same nature as the father. Christ in his deity, however, is not a created being (John 1:1–3). He had no beginning but is as timeless as God himself. Therefore, the “begetting” mentioned in Psalm 2 and its cross-references has nothing to do with the origin of either his deity or his humanity. But it has everything to do with him sharing the same essence as the Father. Expressions like “eternal generation,” “only begotten Son,” and others pertaining to the filiation of Christ must all be understood as underscoring the absolute oneness of essence between Father and Son. In other words, such expressions aren’t intended to evoke the idea of procreation; they are meant to convey the truth about the essential oneness shared by the members of the Trinity.

An incarnational view of Christ’s sonship assumes that Scripture employs father-son terminology anthropomorphically—accommodating unfathomable heavenly truths to our finite minds by casting them in human terms. But human father-son relationships are merely earthly pictures of an infinitely greater heavenly reality. In the eternal sonship view, the one true, archetypal father-son relationship exists eternally within the Trinity. All others are simply earthly replicas, imperfect because they are bound up in mankind’s finiteness yet illustrating a vital eternal reality.

If Christ’s sonship is all about his deity?, someone will wonder why this sonship applies only to the second person of the Godhead and not to the third. After all, theologians do not refer to the Holy Spirit as God’s Son. Yet the Spirit is also of the same essence as the Father. The full, undiluted, undivided essence of God belongs alike to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is but one essence, yet he exists in three persons. The three persons are coequal, but they are still distinct persons. The chief characteristics that distinguish the persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery. In fact, many aspects of these truths may remain forever inscrutable, but this basic understanding of the eternal relationships within the Trinity nonetheless represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over the centuries of church history. The doctrines of Christ’s eternal sonship and eternal generation ought therefore to be affirmed, even while acknowledging them as mysteries into which we cannot expect to pry too deeply.

Incarnational sonship viewpoints normally present a case based on either divine declarations concerning the Son at his birth (Mark 1:1; Luke 1:32, 35), his baptism (Matt. 3:17), or his transfiguration (Matt. 17:5), or on the apostolic declaration concerning his resurrection (Acts 13:30–33; Rom. 1:4). In light of the arguments presented above against incarnational sonship, the divine declarations at his baptism and transfiguration merely express the Father’s approval and endorsement, not the initial appointment of the second person of the Godhead to the position and role of Son. The reference in Luke 1:35, when taken in light of Luke 3:38, could be the identification of Jesus as the second Adam. The texts mentioning his sonship in the context of or in association with his resurrection do not state that his resurrection “made” him the Son of God. Rather, the resurrection revealed in a powerful fashion that he was the Son of God, not a mere man, and was evidence proving his sonship, rather than installing him as Son. As Schreiner aptly notes, “It is crucial to recall that the one who is exalted as Son of God in power was already the Son.” The endorsements at his baptism and transfiguration support such a conclusion, since those occasions preceded Jesus’s resurrection but emphatically declare his sonship. What, then, was the purpose of the Father’s approving endorsements?

In calling Jesus His beloved Son, the Father declared not only a relationship of divine nature but a relationship of divine love. They had a relationship of mutual love, commitment, and identification in every way.

In saying, “with whom I am well-pleased,” the Father declared His approval with everything the Son was, said, and did. Everything about Jesus was in perfect accord with the Father’s will and plan.

John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 237–240.

IV). GOD THE SON: Christology

  A). Preincarnate Christ

2). Eternal Son of God?

• This is a question posed to demonstrate the deity of Christ’s incarnation for our sake, not for the sake of the illustration of the “eternal” relationship within the co-equality of the Godhead. While the popular and traditional view called “eternal generation” is not against any essential element of understanding the nature of our common salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, I don’t believe that view best demonstrates the pattern of sound words used to describe the purpose of the incarnation and the title Son of God. I do believe that, though unpopular, the incarnational view of the Lord’s sonship best defines the purpose of the title, for Christ is given “unto us” first as a Child that would be the means of our adoption so that we should become sons when the eternal decree is fulfilled in the literal and physical demonstration of time in the dimension of the creation itself. 

• There is no reasonable cause to doubt the language given to us to understand the purpose of Christ’s begetting in the realm of time, according to Hebrews 1:5. There are indeed some complex concepts according to the common understanding of the terms “begetting” and “Son” since they speak of origin and subordination. And they are indeed incompatible with a presuppositional line of reasoning that believes the Father-Son relationship was ‘eternally’ preexisting. That’s why the incarnational view adopts the line of reasoning that the Father-Son relationship was a voluntary submission for the purpose of adopting us as sons in His humiliation and condescending to us for salvation (Phil.2:5-8).  

• The ‘eternal sonship view’ is said to rest on the title Son of God because it is believed that it is given to speak of Christ’s deity and absolute equality with God, not his voluntary subordination. The support for this, however, is built upon the understanding of the Pharisees rather than the actual mind of God. Suppose we use that logic as the authority on the issue. In that case, we have elevated the spirit of men above the Spirit of God, for the Pharisees were wrong on many other interpretive problems of the Scripture, especially surrounding their understanding of the Law and even their treatment of the name Yahweh. While it does show their presuppositional understanding, it never indicates that God bears witness to that understanding (Jn.5:18). For when we look at that verse in context, Jesus clearly responds by His voluntary submission to the Father rather than a demonstration of a miracle to illustrate His equality (Jn.5:19-21). 

• Therefore, what does John mean when he acutely observes that the Pharisees perceived Jesus as making Himself equal to the Father? Wasn’t it because Jesus was violating the Law, which to justify Himself would require that He is also the Lawgiver, and that’s why Jesus said He is the Lord of the Sabbath? But the Jews believed that it was obedience to the law that made them sons of the Father; therefore, violating it would mean that Jesus has no justification before God unless He was God (Jn.8:38-47/emphasis v.41). Therefore, Jesus was pointing to the Father as His justification in His subordination. So, I don’t think that argument holds up by the way He Himself responds in verses 19-21 of John chapter 5. While He doesn’t deny His equality with the Father, neither does He deny the purpose of His voluntary subordination, by which He became a man for the sake of giving life and sonship to sinners through His choice of setting aside the earthy sabbath as the sign of the covenant of salvation, making Himself the sign of the new covenant for our salvation (Jn.4:22-24; 5:22-27), whereby Jesus purposely refers to Himself as the Son of Man, which is equally a claim to deity, but for the purpose of elevating man to the eternal rest in themselves as He has rest in Himself when they hear the Lordship of His voice (Heb.4:1-13/emphasis vs.7-8). 

•  The next objection that requires a defense for the incarnational view is the term “begetting” in Psalm 2 as a decree, by which the presuppositional line reasoning denies the begetting as an event that takes place in time. While it is true that the decree of the begetting took place before the foundation of the world in the mind of God, the actual begetting takes place in the mind of Christ when He cries, “It is finished.” Therefore, the “Today” stands as a literal point in time. And again, this is for our sake, that we should be adopted through the knowledge of the Holy One (Jn.1:12-13; Isa.9:6-7; Col.1:12-18). Therefore, I don’t care what the First Council of Constantinople recognized as “figurative,” for to deny the literalness of the begetting is to deny the literalness of my adoption since that is why the Word became flesh, to be imputed with my sin and to me His divine dignity (Rom.8:3-4; 2Cor.5:21; Mk.15:34). Therefore, this begetting (in due time) is the adoption of a new body prepared for glory on behalf of those Christ died according to the likeness of our body (Rom.8:10-11, 22-25; 1Cor.15:45-50).  

• There is a real and objective justification and sanctification in Christ’s incarnation for our sake (Heb.2:9; 10:5; Jn.10:36). Therefore, the term’ eternal generation’ in relationship to the eternal decree is for our regeneration into this sonship as a result of Christ’s securing action by dying according to the flesh for the impartation of our eternal life according to the Spirit (Rom.8:1-2). Now, it’s only the unregenerate mind that is going to be led to think upon this term “begetting” as under the human limitations of origin; therefore, the begetting can only be referring to the necessity to demonstrate this glory according to the weakness of “our flesh” (Rom.6:19; 1Cor.1:18-25; Jn.1:14), but that never denies eternality of the preexisting nature of the mystery behind the glory of the eternality of the Word (Jn.1:1-2), for it was not written to demonstrate a preexisting Father-Son relationship or God would have said, “In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God,’ but now, what does the Spirit working in John intend to say but to leave the eternal relationship of the co-equality of the preexistence of the power of the Godhead a mystery to our human mind through the mind of Christ (1Cor.2:9-16). Why isn’t that sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the regenerated and redeemed mind? Why do we have to appeal to a council of tradition to declare orthodoxy on this question when we have the Word of God? Therefore, is Christ’s sonship “all about his deity,” or is it also about our adoption as sons (2 Cor.8:9; 1Thess.1:5)?     

• Now as result and conclusion of this understanding, why is it necessary to orthodoxy for us to comply with the statement “It is crucial to recall that the one who is exalted as the Son of God in power was already the Son” on the presupposition that Christ’s deity “depends on the assumption that there was a preexisting Father-Son relationship,” when it can be shown that there is a mystery that existed in function before the “decree” to be fulfilled in due time according to this relationship given for the purpose of our salvation, a mystery that is not necessary to prove His deity as the Son of God for our sake. This Father-Son relationship was begotten (by the decree) to be fulfilled in due time for our sake so that we should be called sons of God, not for the sake of defending His deity, for consider this as the reason why Jesus used this title “Son of God” when confronting the Pharisees as a synonomous term for “gods,” which illustrates the relationship of our sonship through the voice of the “Word of God” in John 10:34-36 (Matt.11:19). Therefore, the decree is for His entrance into the domain of the creation and our entrance into the domain of eternal life in the only Son begotten by the Word of God, for there is a sense in which He also begets Himself since all things that are made were made through Him (1Pet.1:22-25; Jn.1:3). And so, when it comes to the term “only begotten,” no defense is needed to speak of the eternal generation according to the flesh, rendering Christ as the “one of a kind” Son or “unique” Son by which we are adopted as sons according to His earthly work (Jn.10:37-38; 1Jn.3:1-2).