For what reason was Jesus to be called the Son of God?

[Matthias]

Gabriel says nothing to Joseph and Mary about an Incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity. They were Jewish monotheists. The only God whom they knew and worshipped is the God of the Jews, the Father. Gabriel is telling them how the God of the Jews himself would miraculously, supernaturally, cause Mary to conceive a human child (a human person) in her womb. Gabriel is telling them that this is the reason the baby would be called Son of God. Begetting / conception, not incarnation.

 

[Matthias]

Greetings Matthias,

I was very interested in your posts and the references that you were able to cite. I agree with all that you stated except I believe that Jesus is our representative. He opened the way to life by his death and resurrection and we share in this when we identify with his death and resurrection by water baptism.

Thank you for offering me an opportunity to clarify. I believe all that you’ve stated as your belief. I’m in full agreement with every point that you mentioned.

I do not know how widespread is your fellowship. Possibly we are more numerous and in many countries.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Matthias]

“The fact that Matthew can speak of Jesus as ‘begotten’ (passive of gennan) in 1:16,20, suggests that for him the conception through the agency of the Holy Spirit is the becoming of God’s Son.”

(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 140)

That’s precisely what a Jewish monotheist who is a 1st century disciple of Jesus believes.

Matthew is a Jewish monotheist, just like Jesus and the apostles are. The becoming of God’s Son is the beginning, the coming into being / existence, the genesis of God’s Son.

The concept of conception christology is anathema in Nicene Christianity. A person who has literally always existed - an essential component of Nicene theology - simply cannot begin to exist.

We’ve seen in other threads that Tertullian believed that there was a time when the Son did not exist with the Father. (If he sounds a little like Arius to you, then you’re on the right track). For Tertullian, the Son was begotten not circa 6 B.C. in Judea (not in time and place, not in the when and the where and the how, Gabriel told Joseph and Mary) but immediately prior to the Genesis creation and that it was the Son, not the Father, who created the heavens and the earth.

What would Gabriel think about that? What would Joseph and Mary think about that? What would any Jewish monotheist think about that?

The begetting of the Son of God in Tertullian’s theology is moved back into pre-history, but not as far back into pre-history as it is in trinitarian, binitarian, and even most unitarian theology.

The concept of eternal generation, which originated with Origen in the 4th century, is the furthest we can move away theologically from the conception christology of Jewish monotheism.

If you’re a trinitarian who rejects it, Adam Clarke will be a “Go to” man. Are we all familiar with his scathing commentary on the concept?

That will then raise the logical question, “Can Nicene Christianity stand without it?”

If you’re a Nicene, Origen will be your Go to” man.

If you‘re a trinitarian who doesn’t know and doesn’t care, this thread will bore you to death.

 

[Matthias]

“Jesus proceeded by eternal generation as the Son of God from the Father in a birth that never took place because it always was.”

(Kenneth Wuest, Great Truths To Live By, p. 30)

Dr. Wuest was a professor of New Testament Greek at Moody Bible Institute for many years. Eternal generation made good sense to him, but what would Matthew and Luke have thought about his comment? Would it have made good sense to them? Would Joseph and Mary say that’s what Gabriel meant when he talked to them?

I’m not persuaded by the concept of eternal generation. For reader’s who are, we’ll just have to agree to disagree - hopefully, amicably.

For readers who aren’t, what will you turn to?

 

[Matthias]

“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. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons: -

1st. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.
2dly. If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.
3dly. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his Divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.
4thly. Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity if our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.
5thly. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to Time.
Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time is also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas.

The enemies of Christ’s Divinity have, in all ages, availed themselves of this incautious method of treating this subject, and on this ground, have ever had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship destroys the Deity of Christ; now, if this deity can be taken away, then it must whole Gospel scheme of redemption is ruined. On thus ground, the atonement of Christ cannot have been of infinite merit, and consequently could not purchase pardon for the offenses of mankind, nor give any right to, or possession of, an eternal glory. The very use of this phrase is both absurd and dangerous; therefore let all those who value Jesus and their salvation abide by the Scriptures. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship, as it has been lately explained in many a pamphlet, and many a paper in magazines, I must and do consider as an awful heresy, and mere sheer Arianism; which, in many cases, has terminated in Socinianism, and that in Deism. From such heterodoxies, and in their abetters, may Gid save his Church! Amen!”

(Adam Clarke, Commentary On The Whole Bible, on Luke 1:35)

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53f33653e4b04507993d2999/t/5443303de4b0cf00d1a4991a/1413689405944/ETERNAL+SONSHIP+OF+CHRIST+-+Adam+Clarke%27s+Commentary.pdf

Clarke obviously wasn’t a fan of Origen and his suggestion. But it was that suggestion that was accepted by the Nicene fathers.

If we reject the suggestion of eternal generation then, historically, we moved back to a point in time when Nicene Christianity hadn’t yet been formulated. Now what? We’re back to Tertullian.

 

[Matthias]

Let’s go back and look at Origen again, with the help of a modern Nicene scholar.

“6. Origen’s Helpful Suggestion. It was the many-sided genius of Origen that helped solve the problem. Origen, like Tertullian, was strongly opposed to Monarchianism with its emphasis on monotheism to the exclusion of hypostasianism and tri-personality. Abandoning the view of the Apologists and of Tertullian who conceived the Logos to be a person only from the time of creation, Origen declared the Logos to have been a person from all eternity. ‘His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy produced by the sun.’ ‘The Father did not beget the Son and set Him free after He was begotten, but is always begetting Him.’ This suggestion of an eternal generation was a needed contribution. It was unconsciously a step in the direction of the co-eternity and co-equality of the Son with the Father, as expressed in the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity.”

(J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1, p. 108)

Origen, we are assured, abandoned the views of Tertullian and the Greek Apologists - the Son, they said, being a person only from the time of creation - which isn’t at all what trinitarianism teaches us. Going back to Tertullian and the Greek Apologists is abandoning trinitarianism. If I’m a trinitarian and fully persuaded about it, that’s not an attractive choice. (So why do trinitarians call on them to support their belief in a doctrine which they didn’t have and hold?)

Origen or bust, we might say. Nicene theology has to have his “helpful suggestion” in order to stand. Had there been no “helpful suggestion” the theological road would have ended before Nicaea and the majority of Christians would believe what Tertullian and the Greek Apologists believed - Arianism probably would have carried the day. (Just for the record, I’m opposed to Arianism.)

Origen is the man, but how far away the man is from the conception christology in Matthew and Luke.

“The Father is always begetting him” doesn’t sound to me anything like what Gabriel said.

 

[Matthias]

Why isn’t this history taught in every church? Why isn’t it taught privately in the home? It’s the story of Christianity. It’s how we got where we are.

***

 

[Matthias]

”In later times the church, no longer perceiving the power and decisiveness of the agent-son-representative model, and having among its members men used to a more philosophical analysis, felt it necessary to go further in the direction of metaphysical identity between Jesus and his heavenly Father: released from Jewish monotheism, gentile Christians began to think of Jesus as also, in some sense God.”

(Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 173)

“We are not called to proclaim philosophy and metaphysics, but the simple gospel.” - C.H. Spurgeon

Now that captures my attention.

Maybe that is a reason why the history isn’t taught in churches. But it is the philosophy, and it is the metaphysics, of the early church fathers that produced the doctrine and the creeds which anathematizes those who aren’t able with a clear conscience to affirm them.

If I were a trinitarian pastor, I would welcome those who didn’t affirm the doctrine and the creeds to attend services - what pastor doesn’t want those of other faiths to listen to his teaching and preaching? - but wouldn’t allow those of another faith to teach and preach to the congregation. That has been my experience when attending trinitarian services. As a pastor myself, I respect that attitude and approach by and toward those who are not of my primitive Christian faith.

 

[Matthias]

“The fact is the two ideas - preexistence and Virginal birth - cannot be reconciled. A Preexistent person who becomes man reduces himself, if you will, to the state of human embryo; but he is not conceived by action exterior to himself in the womb of a woman. But conception is the point at which an individual is formed, who did not exist before, at least as an individual.”

(Albert Reville, History of the Dogma of Jesus Christ, p. 43)

Scripture plainly says that the Son of God was conceived in the womb of the virgin. Gabriel couldn’t have been clearer about that. It’s a stake in the ground that can’t be moved.

No conception of the Son of God in the womb of the virgin = no fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and name him Immanuel.”

Conception christology is essential in Jewish monotheism.

 

[David Lamb]

“The fact is the two ideas - preexistence and Virginal birth - cannot be reconciled. A Preexistent person who becomes man reduces himself, if you will, to the state of human embryo; but he is not conceived by action exterior to himself in the womb of a woman. But conception is the point at which an individual is formed, who did not exist before, at least as an individual.”

(Albert Reville, History of the Dogma of Jesus Christ, p. 43)

Scripture plainly says that the Son of God was conceived in the womb of the virgin. Gabriel couldn’t have been clearer about that. It’s a stake in the ground that can’t be moved.

True, but Scripture also plainly teaches the pre-existence of Christ:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

If there is any doubt that by "the Word" John is referring to Jesus Christ, he writes a few verses later:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Joh 1:14 NKJV)

No conception of the Son of God in the womb of the virgin = no fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and name him Immanuel.”

Conception christology is essential in Jewish monotheism.

Believing in His pre-existence certainly does not mean disbelieving His conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb.

 

[Matthias]

True, but Scripture also plainly teaches the pre-existence of Christ:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

I agree that scripture also plainly teaches the pre-existence of Christ. Conception and literal pre-existence aren’t reconcilable. Conception and ideal pre-existence are reconcilable.

If there is any doubt that by "the Word" John is referring to Jesus Christ, he writes a few verses later:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Joh 1:14 NKJV)

Believing in His pre-existence certainly does not mean disbelieving His conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb.

That’s right. The key is in recognizing that the pre-existence isn’t literal. It’s the Jewish concept of pre-existence which fits smoothly with conception.

 

[David Lamb]

I agree that scripture also plainly teaches the pre-existence of Christ. Conception and literal pre-existence aren’t reconcilable. Conception and ideal pre-existence are reconcilable.



That’s right. The key is in recognizing that the pre-existence isn’t literal. It’s the Jewish concept of pre-existence which fits smoothly with conception.

I believe that the pre-existence was literal in the sense of being real, not that Jesus Christ pre-existed in human form. No, He took on human flesh:

“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God [did] by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,” (Ro 8:3 NKJV)

 

[Matthias]

“In the commentary I shall stress that Matthew and Luke show no knowledge of preexistence; seemingly for them the conception was the becoming (begetting) of God’s Son. The harmonization whereby John’s pre-existant Word takes on flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary (spoken of by Matthew and Luke) is attested only in the post-NT period; …”

(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 31, fn 17)

This is an important point that he’s making. There was no need to harmonize in the NT period because the conception of the Son of God and the pre-existence of the Son of God were understood in terms of the Jewish concept of pre-existence.

 

[Matthias]

I believe that the pre-existence was literal in the sense of being real, not that Jesus Christ pre-existed in human form.

The Jewish concept of preexistence also doesn’t posit that Jesus Messiah pre-existed in human form. So we do have that in common.

No, He took on human flesh:

“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God [did] by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,” (Ro 8:3 NKJV)

I don’t see anything in the verse about Jesus taking on human flesh.

 

[Matthias]

True…

If it really is true then the only option for the two ideas to be reconciled with one another that is left open to us is the Jewish concept of preexistence.

… but Scripture also plainly teaches the pre-existence of Christ:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

If there is any doubt that by "the Word" John is referring to Jesus Christ, he writes a few verses later:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Joh 1:14 NKJV)

Believing in His pre-existence certainly does not mean disbelieving His conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb.

 

[Matthias]

Conception is the mechanism whereby a human person is brought into existence. Conception is the mechanism that gives a human person life. Conception is the mechanism that gives a human person a body of flesh.

That can’t be gotten around.

How does trinitarianism solve this in regard to Jesus?

Easy -> Jesus is not a human person in trinitarian theology.

But is that what trinitarians see and understand when they read about Jesus of Nazareth in scripture?

 

[Matthias]

“The miraculous coming into being of Christ in the virgin through the holy spirit and real preexistence of Christ mutually exclude each other. Later, and in fact very soon, people were admittedly forced to think of them as compatible.”

(Adolf Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. 1, p.118).

By “real” preexistence Dr. Harnack means “literal” preexistence.

Preexistence in Jewish monotheism isn’t real / literal; it is ideal / notional.

Mutually exclusive -> real / literal preexistence and miraculous coming into being / existence in the womb of the virgin.

Not mutually exclusive -> ideal / notional preexistence and miraculous coming into being / existence in the womb of the virgin.

 

[Matthias]

“We have then here, from the mouth of the angel himself an authentic explanation of the term Son of God in the former part of his message. After this explanation, Mary could only understand the title in this sense: a human being of whose existence God Himself is the immediate author. It does not convey the idea of preexistence, but it implies more than the term Messiah, which only refers to His mission.”

(Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary On The Gospel Of Luke, Vol. 1, p. 93)

The angel defined the term “Son of God”. The definition of the term in trinitarianism isn’t the definition given by the angel.

Mary and Joseph were Jewish monotheists. They weren’t thinking about God and Jesus in the way that trinitarians think about them.

Mary and Joseph -> Nicene Christians?

No.

Mary and Joseph -> “Other Faith”.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Interesting thread…..

“The fact that Matthew can speak of Jesus as ‘begotten’ (passive of gennan) in 1:16,20, suggests that for him the conception through the agency of the Holy Spirit is the becoming of God’s Son.”

(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 140)

That’s precisely what a Jewish monotheist who is a 1st century disciple of Jesus believes.

Matthew is a Jewish monotheist, just like Jesus and the apostles are. The becoming of God’s Son is the beginning, the coming into being / existence, the genesis of God’s Son.

For all Jews up to the time of Jesus birth, and his presenting himself at the Jordan for baptism, and his being identified by John B as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”…..Messiah was to be a man of the tribe of Judah, and he was to be born in Bethlehem, of a virgin, according to prophesy.

A virgin birth would preclude the role of an earthly father. Joseph assumed that role in the full understanding that this child, though not his own, was special….from God, with a special reason for his birth. We can also assume that Joseph was an excellent family head as God chose the parents of his son carefully, raising him as a devout worshipper of his Heavenly Father.

It would not have entered a Jewish mind however, that Messiah was going to be God incarnate. Much of what the angel told Mary was taken at face value and Joseph was assured that it was OK to take Mary as his wife….the child in her womb was the product of Holy Spirit, and this child would go on to play a role that no other human could….the redeemer of the human race.

The concept of conception christology is anathema in Nicene Christianity. A person who has literally always existed - an essential component of Nicene theology - simply cannot begin to exist.

Jesus said that he had “come down from heaven” to do the will of his Father…..so his disciples heard him say these things, but it was not until receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that they finally knew what he was talking about. His title as “the son of God“ was not the same meaning of the title that the later “church” leaders would give him. A title that does not appear in any passage of Scripture.

We’ve seen in other threads that Tertullian believed that there was a time when the Son did not exist with the Father. (If he sounds a little like Arius to you, then you’re on the right track). For Tertullian, the Son was begotten not circa 6 B.C. in Judea (not in time and place, not in the when and the where and the how, Gabriel told Joseph and Mary) but immediately prior to the Genesis creation and that it was the Son, not the Father, who created the heavens and the earth.

Nowhere does Scripture suggest that he was brought into existence immediately prior to the Genesis creation, but it may well have been eons prior to the Genesis creation. We have no idea how long the pre-human Jesus was by the Father’s side, learning all he could from him before he was used as the agent of creation. (Gen 1:26; Prov 8:30-31)

Paul’s statement in Col 1:15-17 tell us that the son was “the firstborn of ALL creation”, making him a part of that creation himself. He was “before all things” but not before the God who brought his son into existence as his first excursion into fatherhood. (Rev 3:14) Anyone who is “begotten” needs a ‘begetter’ who existed before them, and who caused them to exist.

The son alone bears the title “only begotten“ but we know that God has many “sons”…….so, what made his “firstborn“ different from all the rest? He was the first and only direct creation of the Father alone…..all other creation came through the son. (John 1:2-4)

What would Gabriel think about that? What would Joseph and Mary think about that? What would any Jewish monotheist think about that?

The begetting of the Son of God in Tertullian’s theology is moved back into pre-history, but not as far back into pre-history as it is in trinitarian, binitarian, and even most unitarian theology.

Biblical history confirms that the son was the very first of God’s creations. He has carried many names and titles in his lifetime, and, contrary to the Father, had a “beginning”. (Rev 3:14) If the son had a beginning, then he is not eternal. Only the Father is said to be eternal.

“The fact is the two ideas - preexistence and Virginal birth - cannot be reconciled.

Not to those who read the Bible with preconceived ideas about what it teaches.
Allowing the Bible to speak for itself answers all questions.

Scripture plainly says that the Son of God was conceived in the womb of the virgin. Gabriel couldn’t have been clearer about that. It’s a stake in the ground that can’t be moved.

No conception of the Son of God in the womb of the virgin = no fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and name him Immanuel.”

Conception christology is essential in Jewish monotheism.

It is reading with a clear picture of whom the scripture was written to, and the beliefs they held at the time of writing. e.g. Like Acts 1:6 where the apostles ask Jesus, as he was ascending into heaven….
”Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?”…..reading this now with the understanding that they had even after three and a half years with their Lord and master…..they still did not grasp the heavenly nature of the Kingdom.

Jews always expected a human Messiah who would reestablish God’s Kingdom on earth, with natural Israel as his “kingdom of priests and a holy nation”.…..and yet after Pentecost, when they were given full understanding by the Holy Spirit of their role, they knew that when Jesus said he was going to ”prepare a place“ for them, they understood that the Kingdom would rule from heaven, and that they would have the privilege of forming the very foundations of that Kingdom.
They understood what being “born again” meant….it meant dying in the flesh like Jesus, and being “raised in the spirit” so as to be received into heaven in the presence of God.

Jesus taught Jewish monotheism, but the ancient understanding had to give way to the understanding of it once the Christ had come to give his life as the ultimate once for all time sacrifice.
Progressive understanding was always how God taught his people….what they needed to know…when they needed to know it.
From Gen 3:15 to Rev 21:2-4….was one story, but it took thousands of years of human history to unfold it.

 

[Berean]

For what reason was Jesus to be called the Son of God?​

"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." - Luke 1:35

Gabriel said, "The Holy Spirit from God will miraculously conceive. A transfer will happen, and the child born will be called the 'Son of God.'" This verse shows the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with the Holy Spirit described as "the power of the Highest." Jesus is correctly related to the Father: "that holy one which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." If Jesus were God, it wouldn't refer to him as "that holy one." Although Jesus was a life transferred, he did not die during the change from spirit to human. There was no end to life. Notice that in verse 31, Jesus was not named until after birth. He is the only one to have such a birth without a pause in life. Only after birth was he recognized as having viable life and personality.

Why do people in the nominal system fail to understand the truth about the Trinity? Many who commit to the Lord believe that Jesus and God are the same. They often accept the Trinity doctrine without studying it in the Scriptures, simply because they heard it frequently as children. They view the Trinity as the main truth that led them to faith and are hesitant to consider it differently. It is important to examine the Scriptures regularly to verify our beliefs. Even if an apostle says something, we should still check the Scriptures, as one apostle is just one witness, and a truth is confirmed by two or three witnesses.