Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

[Bill Taylor]

David writes in reference to Jesus' statement, "Before Abraham was, I AM" >  To surmise that this statement in some way means that he was begotten of God and was the son of God prior to his incarnation is to read one's theology into the text.  Nothing here indicates that he was the son of God prior to his incarnation.  It only speaks to his having existence as God prior to Abraham's existence.   I disagree with you, David, at every strata in your statements above. It was not just his divine status that Jesus is attempting to establish with this statement. He is most emphatically not just saying that he was "God" prior to Abraham's existence. Moreover, one does not have "to read one's theology into the text" to make this determination.   With his statement, "Before Abraham was, I AM" (and it having been made in the context of a derogatory suggestion, which had cast dispersions upon the legitimacy of his own sonship), he clearly interprets his status as that of the divine Son of God the Father; and this prior even to Abraham's day. Remember that his statement came at the end of a series of volleys between himself and some Pharisees that goes back to a couple of questions they had asked: "Are you greater than our father Abraham, who is dead?...Whom do you make yourself out to be?" (John 8.53, and keep in mind that Jesus had in this same exchange already on four separate occasions employed the language of ego eimi -- "I AM"). Now look at how Jesus sets forth his answer in his very next statement: "If I honor myself, my honor is nothing. It is my Father who honors me, of whom you say that he is your God" (v 54, emphasis mine). In this verse Jesus answers their question concerning who he is by calling the one whom they call their God his very own "Father." They had insinuated earlier that Jesus was a bastard son and didn't even know his father (see v 44); they had just identified themselves as legitimate sons of Abraham (v 53), not only that but they had also tried unsuccessfully to establish themselves as sons of God (see again v 44ff). Make no mistake: in response to all of this, when Jesus calls their God his Father, he IDENTIFIES himself as the Son of that Father, the very Son of their God! He then turns their accusations of his illegitimacy back on them: "Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, 'I do not know Him,' I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" (vs 55-56). At this point they again attempt to interpret his sonship in purely temporal, human terms: "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" But Jesus would have nothing to do with it. The legitimacy of his Sonship could not be contained, or determined, or measured in earthly years, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." At this there was no mistake: they picked up rocks to stone him.   David, I am curious about something: Why are you denying (and on more than one occasion) that what you are setting forth is your "teaching" as well? Why instead do you insist on calling this "the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc"? Is it purely on her behalf that you are making these arguments? -- Or is it because you do not want to explicitly identify yourself as the teacher of that which can only be interpreted as heresy from the position of classic orthodoxy? I say this not to offend either one of you, but if I were Judy, I would want to know why you are so willing to let her hang out on that branch all by herself.   Bill                 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me > John wrote: > > You apparently teach that Christ was > > at one time not the Son. > > It is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake, > Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc.  The word "son," especially as used in the > phrase, "Son of Man," is a term that applies to him when he became human > flesh.  Also note that when Jesus referred to himself as the son, he seemed > to prefer "son of Man" to "son of God." > > John wrote: > > If He existed apart from sonship,  this > > begetting you speak of, is, in effect, > > a rite of adoption.   It is only a role the > > 2nd Whatever in the Godhead plays > > to effect the salvation of us all.   He > > was not ----  but now is the son. > > That is the very essense of adoption. > > You cannot call it such for "biblical > > reasons" but that is the effect of your > > teaching.  Not an entirely unwarranted > > conclusion  --   just something I strongly > > disagree with. > > The Biblical Reason is the virgin birth, the miracle of Mary's womb.  Luke > 1:35 has been shared over and over again, but for some reason you seem to > overlook this miracle > > Luke 1:35 > (35) And the angel answered and said unto her, 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. > > Why would the holy thing born of Mary be called the son of God?  Because the > Holy Ghost came upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and > created that which was of God within her womb.  This was not some adoption! > This was a miracle of the Logos becoming flesh, the miracle of God begetting > the son of Man.  God had now begotten a son among men, something never > before done, and it opened the doors of adoption whereby we all can be > adopted into his family. > > David Miller wrote: > >> All of us were adopted because we were born > >> children of Satan, but he was born a child of God > >> from the beginning.  Therefore we call him the only > >> begotten son of God. > > John wrote: > > Gosh, David, which is it?  "begotten son" means > > "virgin born" or is He the child of God (that would > > make Him "son")  from " the beginning?" > > I was talking about the beginning of his existence in flesh and blood.  This > was the start of a new relationship, not just of the Logos to the father > above as a son, but also a new relationship of God to man, God relating to > man through the flesh.  From the very first moment he partook of flesh and > blood, he was son of God as well as son of man. > > John wrote: > > More than simply being confusing,  the above seems > > to equate "begetting" with the English  definition of that > > word  "to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth ." > > rather than the definition of monogeno  (only begotten) > > which has to do with uniqueness  (Kittle, Arnt/Gengrich). > > Christ was the only unique son of God. > > The definition of "monogenes" has a long history of debate that goes back to > the early church fathers.  Some of the debate hinges on whether the second > half of the word originates from "ginomai" (to become) which would lend > itself toward the translation "only existing," or "gennao" (to beget) which > would lend itself toward "only begotten."  Kittle tends to take an extreme > position on defining this word that is propelled by the theological > viewpoint of eternal sonship.  Not all theologians fully accept this > definition.  While there is no dispute regarding the concept of uniqueness > being communicated, there is some debate over what kind of uniqueness is > being communicated.  The dictionary of New Testament words by Zodhiates > acknowledges the viewpoint that I tend to adopt.  Perhaps his wording will > better communicate to you the perspective that I tend to accept, which > relates his uniqueness to the incarnation, to his being begotten not just of > the flesh, but of God.  No other man is like Jesus in this way.  Jesus is > unique. > > Zodhiates says, "... it is the word "logos" (3056), Word, which designates > His personage within the Godhead.  Christ's Sonship expresses an economical > relationship between the Word and the Father assumed via the incarnation. > This stands in fulfillment of OT prophecies which identify Christ as both > human, descending from David, and divine, originating from God.  Like David > and the other kings descending from him, Christ is the Son of God by > position (2 Sam. 7:14), but unlike them and because of His divine nature, He > is par excellence the Son of God by nature (Psalm 2:7; Heb. 1:5).  Thus the > appellation refers to the incarnate Word, God made flesh, not simply the > preincarnate Word.  Therefore, "monogenes" can be held as syn. with the > God-Man.  Jesus was the only such one ever, in distinction with the Holy > Spirit, the third Person of the Triune God." > > John wrote: > > That He (Christ) claims this sonship as an aspect > > of who He is,  is clear in John 8:54-59 > > "If I glorify Myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father > > who glorifies me   ........ Your father, Abraham, rejoiced > > to My day and he saw it and was glad  .... The Jews, > > therefore, said to him, You are not yet fiftey years > > old and have you seen abraham?   Jesus said to them, > > Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, > > I am  "  (all of this spoken in the context of being the > > Son of God.) > > The phrase "Son of God" is not used in this passage.  We have to go all the > way back to John 6:69 to find this phrase, "Son of God."  So I'm not sure > what you mean by the context being "Son of God." > > The Jews in this passage made the claim that Abraham was their father, which > Jesus rebutted and claimed that Abraham was not their father.  Then the Jews > made the claim that God was their Father.  Jesus rebutted that by saying > that if God were their father, they would love him (Jesus).  Jesus makes a > very important point in John 8:42 that has a bearing on our discussion here. > Jesus said that he proceeded forth and came from God, but even in that, he > did not come of himself, but rather God sent him.  This seems to me to speak > of the begetting of the son at the time of the incarnation, when the Word > was made flesh.  Jesus seems to make a point that it was not his idea nor > even his own action, but an action of God.  Jesus then claimed that they > were of their father the devil.  He maintains that those who are of God > would hear his words.  Jesus goes on to make another interesting point here > in John 8:56.  He says that Abraham rejoiced to see his day.  What day is he > talking about?  Surely he is not speaking about some pre-existent begetting > of him, but rather he is speaking about his incarnation in the flesh.  When > the Jews then questioned his age in relation to Abraham, and whether or not > he could have ever seen Abraham, Jesus made the famous statement, "Before > Abraham was, I am."  This statement speaks to his divine nature as having an > existence that preceeded his existence as the son of God in the flesh.  To > surmise that this statement in some way means that he was begotten of God > and was the son of God prior to his incarnation is to read one's theology > into the text.  Nothing here indicates that he was the son of God prior to > his incarnation.  It only speaks to his having existence as God prior to > Abraham's existence.  It corresponds to John's opening statement, "In the > beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." > Such speaks of the Logos existing with God and at the same time being God. > Later in John 1:14, when John speaks of the Word becoming flesh, this is > when he introduces the term "only begotten" which is the translation of the > word "monogenes." > > John 1:14 > (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his > glory, the glory as of the only begotten ("monogenes") of the Father,) full > of grace and truth. > > John 1:18 is the first time John introduces the word "son" and associates it > also with the word "monogenes." > > John 1:18 > (18) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in > the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. > > This passage of John 1:18 also continues the "Word made Flesh" theme from > four verses earlier.  The idea is that man hath not seen God, but man has > seen the only begotten Son.  Why?  Because the son of God is a term that > refers to the Word made flesh, to Jesus, the Word Incarnate.  Men know the > son of God because he is flesh, and men can know God only through the > declaration of this unique son of God.  It seems pretty clear that the > phrase "son of God" refers to the miracle of the incarnation. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > >