The Eternal Sonship of Christ - Glenn Conjurske
The Eternal Sonship of Christ
Introduction
By “the eternal Sonship of Christ,” I mean that Christ has been the Son of God from all eternity, that he is the Son of God in his deity, and not merely in his humanity. That this is the truth of God and the doctrine of the Bible, I have no doubt. But there have not been wanting certain prominent evangelicals to deny the doctrine, such as Adam Clarke in history, and John MacArthur today. I intend to make a few remarks on the nature of those denials, and then to present some solid proof (from Scripture, of course) that Christ is indeed the eternal Son of God.
Cardinal Doctrine
That Christ is the eternal Son of God I regard as a cardinal doctrine of the Bible, but I must affirm two things concerning it.
It is not so clearly or indisputably revealed in the Bible as some other cardinal doctrines, and we might therefore the more readily bear with those who fail to perceive it.
Though I regard them as mistaken who deny it, I cannot on that account alone regard them as heretical. It is plain enough that the motive behind the denial of Christ’s eternal Sonship is not ordinarily to detract from his glory, but rather to uphold it. Sonship, it is supposed, implies a beginning, and further implies some kind of inferiority, and it is therefore in order to exalt Christ to a place of equality with the Father that his eternal Sonship is denied. He is held to be the Son of God only in his humanity, and so subordinate to the Father only in his humanity, while he is every way equal with the Father in his deity.
Adam Clarke’s View
So Adam Clarke writes on Luke 1:35, “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:
I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.
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.
If Christ be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.
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 of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.
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 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 Motive Behind Denial
Thus, it appears that the motive behind this denial is generally good. Not that this is sufficient to justify the denial. Uzzah’s motive was good in putting forth his hand to steady the ark of God, but his deed was not good. The denials of the eternal Sonship of Christ are of exactly the same character as Uzzah’s attempt to steady the ark, but the ark of God was in no need of such a help, and God would not accept it. The denial of Christ’s eternal Sonship is of exactly the same character as the denials of the Bible doctrine of the free will of man, with a view to exalting God, or the denials of the Bible doctrine of repentance, for the purpose of exalting the grace of God. This is will worship, and God will not own it.
The Need Behind the Denial
Uzzah, however, felt a need to steady the ark, and there was a reason for his feeling of that need. The reason consisted of a previous departure from the word of God. If the ark of God had never been put upon a new cart, contrary to the explicit ordinance of Scripture, Uzzah had never felt a need to steady that ark. Now it appears to me that the need which men feel to uphold the person of Christ by denying his eternal Sonship has just such a reason behind it. It is the result of a previous departure from the Scriptures, in embracing a false doctrine of the Trinity. That false doctrine refuses to recognize any order of persons in the Trinity, making God to exist eternally in three persons co-equal in everything. Clarke rightly judges that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ cannot co-exist with such a doctrine of the Trinity.
False Doctrine of the Trinity
I cannot here enter into all that is involved in the doctrine of the Trinity, but I do affirm that a false doctrine of it is widely held by evangelicals. This false doctrine is widely manifested in an unscriptural manner of speaking of the persons of the Godhead. We often hear of “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” “God the Father” is altogether proper, and whenever Scripture speaks of God absolutely, the reference is to the Father—a fact, by the way, which these false views of the Trinity move many to deny. But Scripture never speaks of “God the Son” or “God the Holy Spirit,” but always of “the Son of God” and “the Spirit of God.” Now the use of unscriptural terminology is never a harmless thing. It is almost always the offspring of false doctrine, or false emphasis, and if not the offspring, it is very likely to become the parent of such. The Scriptural phraseology implies an order in the Godhead, a subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. That subordination belongs to the nature of the Godhead, and is therefore as eternal as God himself. God the Father created the worlds through the Son, for the Father was supreme in the Godhead, and the Son subordinate, before the incarnation. The same is seen in the fact that the Father sends the Son, but is himself never sent. The Father and the Son both send the Spirit, but are never sent by him. Yet according to the views of the Trinity which many hold today, it would be just as congruous and proper for the Son to send the Father, as for the Father to send the Son, since they are co-equal in all things. But it seems to me that the spiritual instincts of the godly keep them from the natural effects of their mistaken doctrine. They all hold to the traditional (and Scriptural) manner of speaking of the Trinity as “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” and though they have never given it a moment’s thought, they would no doubt instinctively feel that it were improper to reverse or alter the order in which the persons of the Godhead are named. And this instinct is true, for the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is the truth of God.
The Father and the Son
But Clarke’s denial is also based in part upon an apparent mistake concerning the nature of sonship. “I and my Father are one,” Jesus said (John 10:30), and therefore the Jews took up stones to stone him. They did not apprehend that in calling God his Father, he was affirming his inferiority, in either time or nature, but just the reverse. “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” All this, “because I said, I am the Son of God” (verse 36). And again, in John 5:18, “therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself” —not inferior to, but—“equal with God.” All of this would seem to make Clarke’s fears groundless.
Scriptural Affirmations
Isaiah 9:6 says, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given.” The child is born. The Son is given. But I observe that this text need not have any such technical meaning (for such language could be applied to the birth of any son), and I would be the first to object to making such a use of it, if it were not fully borne out by the rest of Scripture. But it is borne out by the rest of Scripture. It was the Son of God who came into the world. He did not merely become the Son by his coming, but was the Son—was with the Father, and came from the Father. The Father sent the Son into the world. He did not become the Son by virtue of his coming into the world. It was the Son which was sent into the world.
Scriptural Evidence for Christ’s Eternal Sonship
But all of this requires some proof. Scripture speaks often of Christ’s coming into the world, or being sent into the world, but what is meant by this? Do these expressions refer to his being sent of God as John the Baptist and the apostle Paul were sent, or to his coming to earth from heaven? The latter, without question. First observe that this phraseology is applied to others besides Christ, where it clearly refers to their birth.
John 16:21—“joy that a man is born into the world.”
I Tim. 6:7—“for we brought nothing into the world.”
The same expression is used of Christ numerous times.
John 11:27—“I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.”
John 16:28—“I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world.”
John 18:37—“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world.”
I Tim. 1:15—“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”
But observe, there is one substantial difference between Christ and all other men. Of us it may be said that we came into the world, and that is all, for we had no previous existence. Of Christ it is often said that he was sent into the world, and (as quoted above) that he “came forth from the Father.” Now observe who it was who was thus sent into the world, and who it was who sent him.
John 3:17—“For God sent not his SON into the world to condemn the world.”
John 10:36—“him whom the FATHER hath sanctified and sent into the world.”
I John 4:9—“God sent his only-begotten SON into the world.”
Eternal Sonship and the Fatherhood of God
Observe, then, it was the SON who was SENT. He did not become the son at his arrival, or by virtue of his being sent—as they must believe who apply his Sonship only to his humanity. The SON was SENT. And observe further, it was the FATHER who sent him. He “came forth from the Father.” The Father did not become the Father by virtue of sending Christ into the world. He was the Father, who sent him. And mark well, the coming of Christ was not a mere agreement, between two co-equal persons in a triumvirate. Christ was sent, and sent by the Father, and not merely sent as a man, but sent into the world to become a man. “I came forth from the FATHER, and am come into the world. Again, I leave the world, and go to the FATHER.” (John 16:28). The Father was as much the Father when Christ left heaven to enter the world, as when he left the world to enter heaven.
Denial of Eternal Sonship and Eternal Fatherhood
This is a matter of extreme importance, for I beg leave to point out that all who deny the eternal Sonship of Christ must of necessity equally deny the eternal Fatherhood of the Father. If God had no Son from all eternity, then he was no Father. Those who hold that Christ became the Son of God at his incarnation must equally hold that God the Father became the Father at the incarnation. Prior to that, there was neither Father nor Son—neither Father to send the Son into the world, nor Son to be sent.
The Eternal Fatherhood and Sonship
The truth of the matter is, God is the eternal Father, and Christ the eternal Son. This is borne out by a very precious Old Testament type. Though there are very few types of God the Father in the Scriptures, one there is which is obvious and indisputable—namely, Abraham. Abraham’s name was first Abram, and then Abraham, and in these names we see the eternal Fatherhood of God. Abram means “high father,” and Abraham “father of a multitude.” God became the father of a multitude, by virtue of his creation of angels and men, but he always was the high Father, in his own nature and essence. He always was the Father, for he always had a Son.
Conclusion
So John begins in his gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God”—and his epistle, “That which was from the beginning, . . . that eternal life which was with the Father.” He was not only with God, but with the Father “from the beginning,” ere he was born of the virgin Mary, and ere the creation of the world. Yet the Father was no Father if he had no Son.
Eternal Sonship and the Church’s Confession
And though I do not much insist upon it, it seems to me that the term “only-begotten,” which is several times applied to Christ, must imply his eternal Sonship—imply, that is, that he is the Son of God in his deity. If this term “only-begotten Son” speaks only of the humanity of Christ, then it seems that “only-begotten” is saying too much. If only his humanity is in view, wherein does he differ from Adam, or from the angels? If it is said he differs from them in that he is God, this immediately becomes an argument that “only-begotten” refers to more than his humanity.
Once more, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” Can this mean only that the Father gave the humanity of Christ—which he had known and cherished for but thirty-three years? I should think that every spiritual mind must recoil from such a thought. Unspiritual intellectuals may embrace such emptiness, and feel no loss—
Final Thoughts on Sonship
The plain truth is that Christ’s eternal Sonship is part of the very nature of God, and rejecting this eternal truth brings with it a host of doctrinal errors. Whether one denies it or not, Scripture and the nature of God himself declare that Christ has always been the eternal Son of the Father.