Eternally the Son

[cris deloach]

I have heard it said, while listening to the Institutes, that the Son of God is eternally the Son. I believe that Jesus is now eternally the Son, in that He will exist as Jesus from the time of His birth into eternity future. But it seems as though some believe that He was the Son before He was physically born. Did I hear this right?Am I understanding this right? I also believe that I heard the reader say that Christ is eternally begotten of the Father. It sounded like a perpetual birth that has been happening from eternity past and into eternity future. This sounds a little odd and I was hoping someone might be able to elaborate; in short, not an overly lengthy reply.

[cris deloach]

Anyone? Anyone?

[draymond1]

The Sonship of Christ is presented in the scripture as Eternally, incarnationally , and in Resurrection.

[cris deloach]

(I)My first question is where does it say that His "Sonship" is eternal?

(II)My second question is what do you mean by eternal?
(A) Do you mean that from the point of the incarnation He is eternally the Son into the future?
(B) Or, do you mean that from all eternity He is the Son?
(1) When was He begotten? If there is a point at which He is begotten (before the incarnation) then "from all eternity" is incoherent. "From all eternity" means that there is no point of origin. But the word begotten necessitates a time or point of this action taking place in which without the action (or before the action) the one being begotten is not in existence.

To give you a picture of what I mean:In "big bang cosmology" scientist study the universe and discover that it is expanding. So when they extrapolate backwards they discover that the universe use be a lot smaller. In fact, they say that in going backwards in a kind of rewinding of time the only logical conclusion is that at one point the universe did not exist at all and then it burst into existence.

If the Word is begotten of the Father as His Son then an extrapolation backwards means that prior to the begatt the Word was not here. I have had the chance to exercise this on another forum and have not yet had anyone who could show where the word "begotten" was in reference to anything other than the birth of the man, Jesus-who is the Christ, or His resurrection. My point is that the Word is eternal and was not begotten until He became flesh in the birth of Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the response. I look forward to talking more. If you need me to clarify what I mean on a particular point or what my objective is please ask.
cris

[Warren Lamb]

The word monogenes is often thought to etymologically be a combination of monos "only", and gennao, "beget"; hence the derivative meaning "only begotten". However, it could just as well etymologically be monos, "only", and genos, "kind or race"; hence the derivative would become "only one of a kind" - unique.

We can see an example of this meaning when we examine the Septuagint and its translation of Psalm 22:20 ("my only soul") and Psalm 25:16 ("for I am alone and poor") - neither one has any hint of "begetting" anywhere in either text.

If we look further in the New Testament than John 3:16 to Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is said to be Abraham's monogenes. Clearly this cannot mean "only begotten" because Isaac has an older half-brother named Ishmael, and both boys have the same biological father. However, Isaac is indeed Abraham's special and unique son for several reasons which one can discover through a little study over a weekend.

The Triune nature of God is eternal - it always has been and always will be an essential part of His "ontos" - His "being". This, too, can be discovered with careful study of the Scriptures.

This distinction in the meaning of the word monogenes is simply a matter of linguistics, not an attempt to promote heresy. There are things that we understand about koine Greek today that were not understood in Calvin's day, yes?

[cris deloach]

Just a point -if monogenes does not refer to the begetting of someone then there need not be an implanting of "Son" with it. He is the unique one would suffice. Now, Jesus is unique. This would be evident without going back prior to the incarnation. So, I still, from this point, see no reason to apply "sonship" to the Word.

As for Isaac, he is the only son that was promised to Abraham. So Isaac is the only begotten son of the promise. An argument can fairly be made for this to be the meaning.

The ontological relationship that exist within the trinity does not have to change in order for one to believe that eternal sonship is incorrect. Jesus is a part of creation -we would not argue that this is part of the ontological relationship between the Father and Son. There are many ways for a relationship to exist that is virtually identical to that of a father and son without them actually being a father and a son. There are some who hold that the relationship of a father to a son is the best way that God could relate to us his internal being. I personally do not know.

I am currently still undecided as to whether or not I uphold eternal sonship or incarnational sonship. But I believe that my decision will be determined by Hebrews 1:2 and its context:
2 hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;
American Standard Version. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. Heb 1:2

It definitely is hard to be the Son whom made all things without being the Son. But then again, if I was going to tell you about something our first president did as a child, I would still be justified in speaking of him as our first president. For example: Our first president is said to have chopped down his dad's cherry tree.

I do not believe this is a debate that would rattle the cages of Christianity. It is, however, a point of confusion for some people and is an open door for heretics such as the Jehovah's Witness to prey upon the unsuspecting.

thanks
cris

[Warren Lamb]

Cris,

Within the context of Hebrews 11:17, saying "only begotten of the promise" is adding to the text - remember that in hermeneutics one of the basic rules is that the context defines the meaning. I have to run, but I will address the rest of your response tomorrow.

[cris deloach]

The context directly speaks of the promises made to Abraham about Isaac. And the bible is clear that Abraham was promised a son. Which son was he promised? Isaac. That is context.
Thanks for the enjoyable discourse
cris

[Warren Lamb]

Cris,

You seemed locked into an English mis-translation that has not kept up with the work of the Greek grammarians of the last half-century. The term is used of an only child in Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38. Isaac was not an only child, but a unique child - the only child of the promise. This word was also used in that context by many ancient writers, from Josephus to Clement. Saying only "begotten" implies a metaphysical connection that is misleading and, again, poor hermeneutics in light of the best scholarship of our day.

Don't forget how the word was used in the Septuagint as well. This is how we do hermeneutics, yes?

Just for a moment, examine your "struggle" in this light - you may find that there is no struggle at all.

Back to you, my friend.