Begotten Son or Eternal Son?

[farouk]

"The Logos is not considered a pre-existing second person but rather the divine mind or rational expression of God Himself."

Actually, The Lord Jesus is indeed the eternal Son of God.

Psalm 45.6: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre."

Hebrews 1.8: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

1 John 4.10: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The Lord Jesus is not - I speak reverently - something that was sent and then became the Son of God; He is the glorious, eternal Son Who was sent.

John 3.16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Again, the Lord Jesus is not - I speak reverently - something that was given and then became the Son of God; He is the glorious, eternal Son Who was given.

 

[First and the Last]

1 hour ago, Jayne said:

Yes, I am aware that Logos is Koine Greek for "word" and "Word". 

And the Bible says that, in context, this is the name of Jesus Christ.  Revelation 19:11-14 - " I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.  He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God."

 I never said that Jesus Christ was a separate entity from God.  Jesus is the Son of God and God.  The Bible is clear on that.  The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son, but they are ONE.  That's taught in both Old and New Testament.

I DID say that Jesus Christ was pre-existing. That is clear from John 1 and Revelation 19.

 

Jesus as the Son of God is fully divine and fully human. His humanity, however, had a beginning in time, while His divinity, as the Eternal Word, is without beginning or end.  The concept of an "eternal Son" as it suggests a distinct and separate divine person existing alongside the Father from eternity, which would contradict God’s absolute indivisible unity. The Sonship is God’s self-revelation in the flesh, which began at the incarnation and serves the redemptive purpose within God's eternal plan.

Revelation 19:11-14 emphasizes that the exalted and glorified Jesus is the Word of God, eternally divine, yet having assumed human nature to fulfill His redemptive mission. This passage showcases that post-incarnation, Jesus continues to embody both His divine identity as the Word and His human role as the Son. His robe dipped in blood signifies His sacrificial death, which could only be accomplished through His human nature, while His many crowns and the name known only to Himself highlight His eternal divine authority and mystery.

There is a clear distinction between the Eternal Word, which is the timeless, self-revealing aspect of God, and the Son, which began with the incarnation. This belief underscores the absolute unity of God and affirming that Jesus Christ is the full manifestation of the one true God in the flesh.

Scripture emphasize that the Son was begotten on a certain day in time—“this day” (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). All the Old Testament verses that mention the Son are clearly prophetic, looking forward to the day when the Son of God would be begotten (Psalm 2:7, 12; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). (Daniel 3:25 refers to an angel. Even if it describes a theophany of God, it could not mean the then-nonexistent body of Jesus Christ.)

[First and the Last]

1 hour ago, farouk said:

"The Logos is not considered a pre-existing second person but rather the divine mind or rational expression of God Himself."

Actually, The Lord Jesus is indeed the eternal Son of God.

John 3:16 calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God. However, many people use the phrase “eternal Son.” Is this latter phrase correct? No. The Bible never uses it, and it expresses a concept contradicted by Scripture. The word begotten is a form of the verb beget, which means “to procreate, to father, to sire.” Thus begotten indicates a definite point in time—the point at which conception takes place. By definition, the begetter (father) always must come before the begotten (offspring). There must be a time when the begetter exists and the begotten is not yet in existence, and there must be a point in time when the act of begetting occurs. Otherwise the word begotten has no meaning. So, the very words begotten and Son each contradict the word eternal as applied to the Son of God.

1 hour ago, farouk said:

1 John 4.10: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The Lord Jesus is not - I speak reverently - something that was sent and then became the Son of God; He is the glorious, eternal Son Who was sent.

The sending in this verse refers to sending Him out into the world after His public declaration of baptism. He was already here in Human form.

[farouk]

7 minutes ago, First and the Last said:

There is a clear distinction between the Eternal Word, which is the timeless, self-revealing aspect of God, and the Son, which began with the incarnation.

Wrong, Sir.

1 John 4.10 and John 3.16 clearly show that it was the Son who was sent / given. It was emphatically not that an entity supposedly became the Son after being born in Bethlehem.

Isaiah 9.6 shows this also, that 'a son is given'. Take away the Lord Jesus' eternal Sonship and the most beautiful of Messianic passages is rendered way differently from the sense of the passage and from the common understanding of believers in Him.

 

 

[farouk]

3 minutes ago, First and the Last said:

 

The sending in this verse refers to sending Him out into the world after His public declaration of baptism. He was already here in Human form.

Wrong, Sir.

John the Baptist said of the Son of God, 'He was before me'.

John 1.29-34:

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

³⁰ This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

³¹ And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

³² And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

³³ And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

³⁴ And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."

It is not - I speak reverently - that some entity was supposedly sent and given, that subsequently became the Son of God, supposedly.

The Lord Jesus was gloriously the Son of God already, both before His baptism and before He came into the world. (Otherwise, the glorious Messianic character of the Lord Jesus is obscured.)

[First and the Last]

Jesus Christ is the manifestation of this Eternal Word made flesh (John 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"). The incarnation is the moment when God took on human nature and came into existence as the man Jesus Christ. This means that Jesus, as the Son of God, had a definite beginning in time when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. Thus, the Sonship refers to the incarnation.

John the Baptist’s statement in John 1:15, "He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me," is understood as a reference to the preexistence of the Eternal Word, not an eternal Son. John acknowledges that Jesus, though born after him, is indeed preeminent because He is the embodiment of the Eternal Word, who existed from the beginning. This underscores the belief that Jesus' divine nature as the Word is eternal, while His human nature as the Son had a specific starting point in history.

There must be a time when the begetter exists and the begotten is not yet in existence, and there must be a point in time when the act of begetting occurs. Otherwise the word begotten has no meaning. So, the very words begotten and Son each contradict the word eternal as applied to the Son of God.

[farouk]

1 minute ago, First and the Last said:

Jesus Christ is the manifestation of this Eternal Word made flesh (John 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"). The incarnation is the moment when God took on human nature and came into existence as the man Jesus Christ. This means that Jesus, as the Son of God, had a definite beginning in time when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. Thus, the Sonship refers to the incarnation.

John the Baptist’s statement in John 1:15, "He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me," is understood as a reference to the preexistence of the Eternal Word, not an eternal Son. John acknowledges that Jesus, though born after him, is indeed preeminent because He is the embodiment of the Eternal Word, who existed from the beginning. This underscores the belief that Jesus' divine nature as the Word is eternal, while His human nature as the Son had a specific starting point in history.

There must be a time when the begetter exists and the begotten is not yet in existence, and there must be a point in time when the act of begetting occurs. Otherwise the word begotten has no meaning. So, the very words begotten and Son each contradict the word eternal as applied to the Son of God.

This rejects John 3.16.

God's love did not cause an entity to become the Son of God, supposedly.

He gave His only begotten Son.

He sent His Son.

[First and the Last]

14 minutes ago, farouk said:

God's love did not cause an entity to become the Son of God, supposedly.

The claim that God's love caused an entity to become the Son of God reflects a misunderstanding of the Oneness of God. The Son of God is not an entity that came into existence as a separate person due to God's love. Instead, the oneness of God understands the term "Son of God" specifically refers to the incarnation, when the one true God took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. This incarnation was indeed motivated by God's profound love for humanity, but it did not create a new, separate entity or person. Rather, it was the eternal God manifesting Himself in flesh to accomplish the work of redemption. The Sonship began at a specific point in time with the conception and birth of Jesus Christ, marking the union of divine and human natures in a single person. Thus, God's love is demonstrated in the incarnation and sacrificial life of Jesus, who is fully God and fully man, rather than in the creation of a separate divine person or entity. This understanding preserves the oneness and indivisibility of God while acknowledging the unique role of Jesus Christ as the manifestation of God's love and redemptive plan.

The phrases "He gave His only begotten Son" and "He sent His Son" are understood within the framework of the incarnation rather than implying that the Son existed in Heaven prior to being sent. These expressions reflect the deep theological truth that the one God, in His love and purpose, manifested Himself in human flesh as Jesus Christ to redeem humanity. The term "begotten" refers to the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus, emphasizing His unique and singular nature as fully divine and fully human. When the Scriptures speak of God sending His Son, this is God sending His own Spirit, incarnated in the person of Jesus, into the world. This sending is not about a pre-existent Son traveling from Heaven to Earth but about God's purposeful action in entering human history through the incarnation. Therefore, these verses are understood to highlight the mission and manifestation of God in Christ rather than supporting the idea of an eternal Son being sent from Heaven. This interpretation maintains the oneness of God while acknowledging the profound mystery of the incarnation, where God’s eternal Spirit was fully present in the man Christ Jesus.

[farouk]

3 minutes ago, First and the Last said:

The claim that God's love caused an entity to become the Son of God reflects a misunderstanding of the Oneness of God. The Son of God is not an entity that came into existence as a separate person due to God's love. Instead, the oneness of God understands the term "Son of God" specifically refers to the incarnation, when the one true God took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. This incarnation was indeed motivated by God's profound love for humanity, but it did not create a new, separate entity or person. Rather, it was the eternal God manifesting Himself in flesh to accomplish the work of redemption. The Sonship began at a specific point in time with the conception and birth of Jesus Christ, marking the union of divine and human natures in a single person. Thus, God's love is demonstrated in the incarnation and sacrificial life of Jesus, who is fully God and fully man, rather than in the creation of a separate divine person or entity. This understanding preserves the oneness and indivisibility of God while acknowledging the unique role of Jesus Christ as the manifestation of God's love and redemptive plan.

The phrases "He gave His only begotten Son" and "He sent His Son" are understood within the framework of the incarnation rather than implying that the Son existed in Heaven prior to being sent. These expressions reflect the deep theological truth that the one God, in His love and purpose, manifested Himself in human flesh as Jesus Christ to redeem humanity. The term "begotten" refers to the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus, emphasizing His unique and singular nature as fully divine and fully human. When the Scriptures speak of God sending His Son, this is God sending His own Spirit, incarnated in the person of Jesus, into the world. This sending is not about a pre-existent Son traveling from Heaven to Earth but about God's purposeful action in entering human history through the incarnation. Therefore, these verses are understood to highlight the mission and manifestation of God in Christ rather than supporting the idea of an eternal Son being sent from Heaven. This interpretation maintains the oneness of God while acknowledging the profound mystery of the incarnation, where God’s eternal Spirit was fully present in the man Christ Jesus.

This is not the plain and common and Scriptural understanding of what "He gave His only begotten Son" and "He sent His Son" mean.

The glorious One given and sent was the Son of God already before coming into the world at Bethlehem. Otherwise an understanding of the glorious Messianic character of the Lord Jesus is sadly gutted.

[Jayne]

1 hour ago, First and the Last said:

Scripture emphasize that the Son was begotten on a certain day in time—“this day” (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). All the Old Testament verses that mention the Son are clearly prophetic, looking forward to the day when the Son of God would be begotten (Psalm 2:7, 12; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). (Daniel 3:25 refers to an angel. Even if it describes a theophany of God, it could not mean the then-nonexistent body of Jesus Christ.)

I was waiting for you to bring up Psalm 2:7.  ;) Do you believe that it is a calendar date?  I don't.

I also do not believe that the Son of God came into existence only when he was miraculously imparted into Mary's womb.

Jesus, the Son, [not yet in human form, but in EXISTENCE] was the Creator for pity's sake.  So says Colossians for those who understand grammar and antecedents.

I'm not going to convince you to change your mind.  Ergo, good day.