Eternal Sonship of Jesus?

[Josh]

1. Was the 2nd person of the Trinity (the logos) always referred to as "the Son"? Or did He become the Son after the incarnation? The bible is not clear on that and even many Trinitarians (like myself) believe it's the latter.

Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!

Here's an interesting (and rare) OT passage that possibly, depending on interpretation, mentions the notion of the Son of God. There are few others that could be pointed to: "Kiss the Son" in the Psalms, if translated correctly, etc..

So, do you see these and other implied references to sonship in the OT as just predictive of Sonship brought about by the incarnation rather than descriptive of a present reality?

It seems a lot of this might have to do with the debate regarding time/ open theism, etc.. But since I don't see God as limited or trapped within the present, or rather that the past, the present, and future are all equally accessable to God I lean toward seeing his Sonship as eternal.

If he was "slain before the foundation of the world", it makes sense (though not conclusively, I'd readily admit) that he always was in some sense the Son of God. Or, perhaps, on the other hand, it just doesn't make sense to speak of Sonship without a birth having occurred.

I suppose, based on all of this, I mostly lean to a paradoxical understanding of this matter which would probably answer both "yes" and "no" to the question of whether the Jesus was eternally the Son.

[christopher]

Just real quick:

I believe Psalm 2 is referring to Jesus prophetically.

I don't believe Prov 30 is referring to the "Son of God", I think Agur is speaking rhetorically. If he is speaking of the Word (logos), than he's the only one in the whole OT that was let in on this secret. Too obsure to build a doctrine on IMO.

[Josh]

Too obsure to build a doctrine on IMO.

I'm definitely not suggesting that we should. Of course, this passage is quite vague... though I still find it intriguing. If he is describing God, it's an interesting phrase to add, even if rhetorical.

However, this does lead me to another topic which I'll post on the Inspiratin of Scripture sub-forum:

Original Context vs. Superintending...

[christopher]

Only a minute to reply:

Here's a couple of verses that come to mind that suggest that there was a point where Jesus became God's son:

Acts 13:32-33
32 And we declare to you glad tidings--that promise which was made to the fathers. 33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:

'You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.'
NKJV

And

Col 1:18
18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
NKJV

I don't have time to expound (unfortunately), but there is a little ground work anyways.

Gotta go.

[christopher]

Out of the homework this week, we have a passage that is relevant to this discussion.

Luke 1:31-36
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest[/b] ; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." 34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" 35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
NKJV[/i]

(There's that pesky tense thing again )

It would appear the angel here doesn't hold to the eternal "Sonship" of Jesus doctrine that the majority of the church holds.

My own opinion was that the new nature the Logos took on (human nature in Jesus) was the time that He "Humbled Himself" (Phil 2) and became the "Son of God".

[Josh]

It could be that he would be called Son by humans from that point forward, but I think you could be right. I've never really given it much thought. However, I do think that just because he may be called the Son after the incarnation, doesn't mean he didn't exist as a separate person within the Godhead before. There are many passages which do indicate that (John 1, etc.)

[Josh]

elsewhere, in response to my suggestion that OT theophanies may have been Christophanies of Jesus in the flesh, jaybee wrote:

I see that Christ is said to have existed in eternity-past as the personification of God's word.

In Luke, Mary is told she will bear a son, and then he will be called the Son of God (1:31-32). Additionally, Mary is told it is specifically because of the conception and birth of a child, that the child is known as the Son of God (1:35). A son must be born before a son exists.

I think this is why John writes about Christ's preexistence as the Word of God, but nothing in the Bible talks of Christ's preexistence as the Son of God. It is only upon his conception and birth that he is seen as God's son. Christ as son is something that happens during the opening events of the gospels.

[Josh]

In reviewing this older discussion, it strikes me that the answer could easily be that from a human, linear perspective on time, Jesus was considered a son only after Mary's conception.  But since I believe God transcends time, from His perspective, He is always the same.  Just as he always was, is, and will be "the lamb that was slain".    However, when Jesus divested himself of his omnipotence during his human life here, even from his perspective, he would be more prone to see it from our linear perspective. 

All that to say, this is fascinating, but not crucial.  I hadn't ever thought before whether this mattered for the question of the physicality of OT theophanies, so that's a new twist. 

[jaybee]

Sept 9, 2014 16:17:01 GMT -8 Josh said:

In reviewing this older discussion, it strikes me that the answer could easily be that from a human, linear perspective on time, Jesus was considered a son only after Mary's conception.  But since I believe God transcends time, from His perspective, He is always the same.  Just as he always was, is, and will be "the lamb that was slain".   

Not to be too contrary, but where do you see that he has forever been the lamb that was slain? I would argue with that also, that the lamb was prophetically typified, but he was not the lamb who was slain until he became as such. I think God chooses to interact with us on the timeline, that is why God has regrets, changes in direction, etc.

Most of the time, the idea comes from Rev 13:8, but I believe the proper translation of the verse is the timing of the writing in the book was before the foundation of the world, not the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, because he really was not slain until after the foundation.

Please see Rev 13:8 in NIV & KJV vs. NASB, ESV, and even NLT.

All that to say, this is fascinating, but not crucial.  I hadn't ever thought before whether this mattered for the question of the physicality of OT theophanies, so that's a new twist. 

It is not crucial to salvation, but I've found it really helps when talking to JWs, because you do not trace the Son back as fully God, but the Word become Son.

There has actually been many instances I have found this distinction of Jesus as Word, and then Son to help. Another issue is considering openness theology, and if God lives out of or within time.

[Josh]

It is not crucial to salvation, but I've found it really helps when talking to JWs, because you do not trace the Son back as fully God, but the Word become Son

You know what also helps with JWs?  Affirming the bodily resurrection (not merely spiritual) of Jesus  

I'll get back to you on the other stuff.

[Josh]

Oh, and dont worry about being contrary. I'm surrounded by contrarians ?

[christopher]

Woohoo!  I'm glad it's not just me, Adam Clarke, and the angel visiting Mary anymore.

It's nice to have some company Jay

[Josh]

Most of the time, the idea comes from Rev 13:8, but I believe the proper translation of the verse is the timing of the writing in the book was before the foundation of the world, not the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, because he really was not slain until after the foundation.

Please see Rev 13:8 in NIV & KJV vs. NASB, ESV, and even NLT.

The NASB/ ESV version presents more theological problems to me: I suppose Calvinists would love it.  Why do you prefer that translation?  Theologically or linguistically?

I think God chooses to interact with us on the timeline, that is why God has regrets, changes in direction, etc.

I don't disagree with this.  I don't think God being able to transcend time negates this.  It's paradoxical: in time, He proceeds linearly like us, outside of time he is unchanging and simultaneously every thing he ever was, is, or will be from our perspective.

But, as a side note, I don't tolerate the idea that God's "changes of mind" etc in Scripture are just illusions or figures of speech, as some hold.  I really do think in one sense (in time) he can change his mind/ be surprised, etc... 

[jaybee]

On the surface, I prefer the language of the ESV/NASB because:

• It fits better with Christ not being the slain lamb until such a time as he was slain
• It creates a theological match with Romans 8:29

To go another couple of routes, ones that I have not had time to completely study out:

Possibility 1 - The weakest
The verse is a negative, saying the ones who worship the beast have never had their name in the book, since the world was founded.

The emphasis is upon how emphatically these worshipers are NOT part of the book, and NEVER have been. This statement is not to be taken as a positive. It is not saying that all others who will be found in the book have been there since the foundation of the world. The names in the book, could have been added yesterday, some names in the book could have had their name entered and then blotted out. We don't know.

The point is that those who worship the beast have never had their names in the book.


Possibility 2 - I'll let you in on a "major" project I am looking to turn into an academic paper
The word "everyone" is not actually in the Greek text. Therefore, the one whose name has never been in the book of life is really the one being worshiped. This is my preferred belief.

I believe this possibility also makes the most sense grammatically, because if the word "everyone" is omitted like it should be, then the object of the one not in the book is the "him" who is being worshiped. Thus, it is referring to the beast as the one whose name is not in, and never has been in, the Book of Life.

This is again making no statement on how long any other names have been in the book, but is only telling about the beast.

Also, if one considers the dragon as Satan to be the power behind the beast, this idea might fall in line with Jn 8:44, and my belief that Satan was made evil since his beginning. A beginning which I believe would go back to the foundation of the world.

I'm not 100% on this yet, but this is my thought that I am working on.

The other reason I like possibility #2 is that it limits the amount of Calvinistic cannon fodder.


Although, I went ahead and posted on the topic of foreknowledge as well...

[jaybee]

I'm out of town for the weekend, and have limited areas of connectivity, but I am still interested in your guys' opinion related particularly to Possibility #2.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Josh]

Interesting proposal on #2.  Seems plausible from the perspective of someone who's not a Greek scholar.  Have you ever found any Greek scholars arguing for it?

As a side note, I think it's problematic to see satan as having been created evil.  But you can see some of my thoughts on that here: The Good, the Bad, and the Fallen

[jaybee]

I have not found any Greek scholars that support my idea, but then I haven't had the time to look hard yet. It is on my to do list.

For now, my proposal is just based on the english held in a couple translations, and the absence of the word "everyone" in the Greek. I need somebody more skilled in Greek to tell me if it is possible for the phrase "whose name..." to refer to the one being worshipped.

Since it already seems that translations are undecided if the "name" is referring to the worshippers or the Lamb, it seems the object of "name" cannot be determined, so my option is just as plausible.

I have a Greek professor that I have a tentative meeting with in 2 weeks, and hopefully I'll get some more answers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk