The Eternal Sonship of Christ - Glenn Conjurske

The Eternal Sonship of Christ

by Glenn Conjurske

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.

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.

1.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.

2.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.

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:

“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 of 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 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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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 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.

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.

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—-as they may do also when they speak coldly of “the precious blood of Christ” as though it were a mere symbol—-but I dare say they have no tears in their eyes, no lump in their throat, and no yearning in their heart, when they speak so. As I sit to pen these words, “God so loved the world that he gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON,” I feel my soul moved to its depths, while the tears flow from my eyes—-but I fear the fountain of my tears must dry up if I could not find here the Son of God, who was with the Father before the world was, daily his delight ere man or angel existed. This SON he GAVE.

I am well aware that the terms “Father” and “Son” may be used retroactively. I say, “My father was born in Milwaukee,” and this does not imply that he was my father when he was born. Yet it seems to me that the manner in which this terminology is used in Scripture plainly implies the eternal Sonship of Christ, for it implies the eternal Fatherhood of God. Christ speaks often of “the Father”—-not merely of “my Father.” If this Fatherhood was something recently acquired, “the Father” would seem a strange manner in which to speak of it. “The Father” certainly seems to speak of something which he is in his own nature. So also of the many references to “the Son.” “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given to us an understanding, that we might know him that is true.”

(I John 5:20). “Is come”—-from heaven, from the Father—-for surely to apply this coming to anything subsequent to the incarnation is to empty it. It was the Son of God who came.

Yet again, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by HIS SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person,” etc. (Heb. 1:1-3). There is not the slightest question that all of this refers to the deity of Christ, and yet it is all spoken of him as Son. God made the worlds by his Son. So Proverbs 30:4—-“Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his Son’s name?” There can be no retroactive speech here, for this was written long before the incarnation. What can Adam Clarke do with this? Here is his comment on the place: “Some copies of the Septuagint have

: `Or the name of his sons;’ meaning, I suppose, the holy angels, called his saints or holy ones, ver. 3.” But we are not concerned what some copies of the Septuagint read here. Clarke himself proceeds to inform us that “the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Vulgate read as the Hebrew”—-that is, they have “son” in the singular, not “sons.” Clarke continues, “Many are of the opinion that Agur refers here to the first and second persons of the ever-blessed TRINITY. It may be so; but who would venture to rest the proof of that most glorious doctrine upon such a text, to say nothing to the obscure author? The doctrine is true, sublimely true; but many doctrines have suffered in controversy, by improper texts being urged in their favour.” But what admissions are these! The doctrine—-that there is a first and a second person in the Trinity, and that the second person was the Son at the creation of the world—-this is sublimely true! Sonship aside, did he not perceive that to admit of a first and a second person in the Trinity is in fact to practically give up his ground? Once admit a first and a second person in the Trinity, and he has little reason left to deny the Sonship of the second person. As for the text, we do not think it obscure at all, and as for the author of it, this was the Holy Ghost. As for Agur, he is not so obscure as the authors of Job or Ruth, of whom we know nothing. We know the name at any rate of Agur.

To return to Hebrews 1, God has spoken by his Son—-revealed himself by his Son, who is the express image of his person. There is no possible reference to anything human here, yet this speaks explicitly of his Sonship.

So again, “No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (John 1:18).* The Son declared what he knew—-of his own eternal dwelling place, in the bosom of the Father. For mark, the Son of God did not gain his fitness to reveal the Father by virtue of union with the eternal Word—-as we must suppose if he is the Son only as a man. All his fitness to reveal the Father lay in the fact that he was the Son—-the express image of the Father—-in the bosom of the Father, and there from all eternity.

Hebrews 7:3 gives very strong testimony to the real nature of the Sonship of Christ. Speaking of Melchisedek as a type of Christ, it says, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the SON OF GOD.” Certainly the very point of all that the Holy Ghost here says of Melchisedek is that he typifies something divine. Every word which he speaks is spoken precisely to exclude everything which belongs by nature to humanity. “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” And it is precisely in these things that he is said to be “made like unto the Son of God.” This is explicit, and it is hardly possible to imagine a stronger testimony than this to the fact that the Sonship of Christ belongs to his deity. It is only as such—-only as God, that is—-that he is without beginning of days or end of life. And this may suffice to answer Adam Clarke’s fears that sonship must imply a beginning. If the word were v , “child,” there might be some ground for those fears, for a v implies a birth, but the word “son,” J v , may imply no more than identity of nature. So the Jews understood it when they accused Christ of making himself equal with God, and so the Lord used it when requiring his own to walk in love, “that ye may be sons, J v, of your Father which is in heaven.” v they were already, children of God by birth, but sonship implies a like nature.

But we must yet reckon with Psalm 2:7, “Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee.” “This day” may present a difficulty, but difficulties are not unusual, even when we hold the very truth. And I find that those who oppose the eternal Sonship of Christ, as Adam Clarke, have difficulties with Psalm 2:7 also, and must wrest it to make it square with their position—-and after all their wresting, it will not square yet.

Clarke says, “We have St. Paul’s authority for applying to the resurrection of our Lord these words, `Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee;’—-see Acts xiii.33; see also Heb. v.5;—-and the man must indeed be a bold interpreter of the Scriptures who would give a different gloss to that of the apostle. It is well known that the words, `Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,’ have been produced by many as a proof of the eternal generation of the Son of God. On the subject itself I have already given my opinion in my note on Luke i.35, from which I recede not one hair’s breadth. Still however it is necessary to spend a few moments on the clause before us. The word <wyh, haiyom, TO-DAY, is in no part of the sacred writings used to express eternity, or anything in reference to it; nor can it have any such signification. To-day is an absolute designation of the present, and equally excludes time past and time future; and never can, by any figure or allowable latitude of construction, be applied to express eternity.”

Be it so, and grant also that Psalm 2:7 must therefore refer to the humanity of Christ—-or suppose that we do not know what Psalm 2:7 refers to—-does any or all of this overturn the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, as established above? Supposing that this text refers to his humanity, we are yet persuaded that other texts ascribe Sonship to his deity.

But Clarke must wrest the text to have it his way, for he will not affirm that such things were spoken to the Son on the day of his conception in the womb, but insists upon the application of the text to his resurrection. Yet on that side, he dare not affirm that Christ became the Son of God at his resurrection—-for he is repeatedly called the Son of God before his death. Well, what then? Why, “have begotten” does not mean “have begotten” at all. So Clarke writes further:

“The word ytdly yalidti, `I have begotten,’ is here taken in the sense of manifesting, exhibiting, or declaring; and to this sense of it St. Paul (Rom. i.3,4) evidently alludes when speaking of `Jesus Christ, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, J J

J , : and declared (exhibited or determined) to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness.’ . . . I need not tell the learned reader that the Hebrew verb dly yalad, to beget, is frequently used in reference to inanimate things, to signify their production, or the exhibition of the things produced.”

But this is all error. In the first place, it is absolutely inadmissible to affirm that the verb signifies production OR exhibition. Let it be one or the other, for the two are not the same thing, and the word does not mean both. The word means to beget or bear children, whether of men or animals. It is used hundreds of times in that sense in the Old Testament—-even to hatch eggs, and in the Piel, to act as midwife—-but never in the sense of exhibiting the young which are brought forth. As for its numerous applications to inanimate objects, I can find seven of them in the Old Testament, and in every one of them the word means to produce or bring forth, which is its own natural meaning. Never once does it mean to exhibit or manifest. Let the reader judge:

Job 15:35—-“They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity.”

Job 38:28,29—-“Who hath begotten the drops of dew, . . . and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?”

Psalm 7:14—-“He travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.”

Psalm 90:2—-“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth.”

Prov. 27:1—-“Thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.”

Is. 26:18—-“We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind.”

Is. 55:10—-“watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud.”

One time, however, the word actually does mean something very near exhibiting. This is in Numbers 1:18, where it is rendered, “they declared their pedigrees after their families.” But here the word is in the Hithpael, or reflexive, in which it has a meaning entirely diverse from the Kal and other modes. This is the only place in the Bible where the Hithpael appears, and so the only place where it is so rendered. Its meaning here, in the Hithpael, has nothing to say to Psalm 2:7.

I hold, then, that in “this day I have begotten thee,” “begotten” must mean begotten. It cannot mean manifested or declared—-for it never means that. If the passage applies to the resurrection, as Clarke insists, then it was upon the resurrection day that Christ became the Son of God. This is manifestly false. But it is said that the apostles applied the text to the resurrection. If they did, it is no matter. An application of a text does not necessarily exhaust its meaning—-does not necessarily even touch its primary meaning. We cannot confine the meaning of Old Testament passages to the application which the New Testament makes of them, and I hold it to be a false and pernicious principle to insist that we must. By this means much of the Old Testament may be—-and is—-emptied of its meaning. If the passage applies to the humanity of Christ, it must apply to his incarnation. If so, it affirms that Christ is the Son of God in his humanity—-but this says nothing against the fact that he is so also in his deity. If this is established by plain Scripture, we need not answer every objection which can be brought against it. There are many things which we cannot explain. We see in a glass darkly. We cannot understand eternal existence at all, much less eternal self-existence, but once grant that an eternal God exists at all, and it is no more tax upon reason to believe that he has eternally existed as Father, Son, and Spirit, than to believe in any other mode of existence.

Glenn Conjurske