The Eternal Word and the Begotten Son
"the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)"
Where or who is the right god for a start?
Its quite uncanny how every group or clique has its pet theme and
through subtle peer pressure likes to hear its spiritual idiom spoken
by its adherents, to qualify its stance and spiritual course
taken. This is a sort of religious 'comfort zone' thing, adopted by
religious clubs where its jargon plays a big part.
You have the
"church restorationists' in one department (oh how dey luv de
"original" Greek), who make a big luvy-duvy thing about "the Father". In
other words, when they 'talk their talk' they think it is historically
acceptable or authenticated to always refer to the Lord as "the Father"
... "I was speaking to
the Father today and
the Father told me
such and such ... !" More ... "Your own personal view depends on whether
the Father approves it or not. After all,
the Father's ways are not our ways ... " "
The Father", "
the Father", and so forth (almost drives you crazy)! Like acknowledging God always as
the Father
is the kool or in vogue thing to do (being biblical becomes almost secondary). Coz, if you don't,
"You aint got the latest and greatest revelation Brother!"
Same goes for those who are on some sort of "Jesus" trip and over
stress His name (like they were really trying hard to prove something -
would "try hard Christian" do?) to the point the most precious name
comes across as being used too facilely and flippantly. You know
... "give us a J, give us
a E, give us an S", and so on, sort of thing! It starts off with
something boarding innocence doesn't it? Like the term "Jesus
music",
where you end up, taken further, with such religious commodities as
"Jesus T-shirts" or "Jesus badges", and even worse.
Then we have another bunch who have a problem with de "original" Greek
and have to go the other extreme to the elusive "Aramaic" (as if God's
English Bible is not good enough) and ban 'God'
written as 'God', but replaced as 'G-d', and can't call 'God' "our
Father" but "El Shaddai" or something. Not to forget "Yahweh" of
course!
Moreover, not to forget replacing the "inaccurate" "Jesus" with one of
the many apparent Hebraic substitutes from "Yeshua" to "Yahshua" (and
many,
many more),
depending on what's been approved by their "tribes" guru or not. Get
the drift?
However, my Bible says a lot about the begotten Son coming and
manifesting the fulness of God and saying how everything about God was
in the Son. Moreover, how the Son was exalted above all to have
the pre-eminence above all. Meaning, if we are going to get a
real gist on God then we need to look at all aspects of His Sonship as well as compared
with His eternal deity and being. No other way really!
Therefore, please feel free to check this out and read on. I trust my
motive is not to brainwash you or become your guru (I will leave that
to others itching for ministry and platform) but to motivate you into the scriptures in order to
reinforce your walk with the true, biblical, living God, only
found in His Son. Here we go then ... grab your Bible (the right one of course):
Sons eternal or sons begotten?
Okay, no doubt you have heard of the eternal Word and the begotten Son! Moreover, no doubt there's two different
functions here! This is where one is eternal and the other being birthed in time,
but the same person and same God nevertheless!
Following up on my very first treatise exposing the Trinity,
"The Three Witnesses of Jesus", an
interesting situation has arisen from those who oppose my stance
of claiming the three witnesses in 1 John 5:7 are in reference to the
divinity of Jesus and are not an endorsement from God to "the Holy
Trinity" tradition of Christendom at all (a verse removed or in
controversy
with modern bible versions). This situation has come as a protest
from those who believe that a 'son' biblically can be 'a
son' eternally, without the process of being begotten, conception or
birth. There
lies the great debate ... what makes 'a son' qualify to be 'a
son', scripturally speaking, as well as in general terms? Simplified as
three as
one and the
same:
God ... eternal. Without beginning and end.
Son ... begotten. Conception, birth, then growing in stature.
Jesus ... both of the above.
Therefore, at this point in time I would like us to go to Genesis six
in
regards to the "sons of God" controversy, because here lies the crux of
the whole issue to whether 'a son' is 'a son' without conception and
birth. If it is proven to be true that 'a son' in scripture can
only be 'a son' through conception and birth, then you see the whole
doctrine of "the Most Holy Trinity" which Christendom in general agrees
to, is shaken to its very foundations by one clean sweep.
Therefore, as
students of the Bible and followers of Christ, is it essential that
we look fully into this issue and allow scripture to speak and prove
which doctrine is from God. The doctrine this website supports is
emphatic that 'a son' has to be part of a maturity process from being
begotten, to conception, to birth and beyond, as opposed to 'a son'
being qualified 'a son' without being begotten, and with the absence of
the conception and birth process. Moreover, without biblical
support apart from two (misconstrued) references in Genesis six and the
passage bridging Job chapter one and chapter two.
For those of you who wish to
look at this in more detail I deal with this extensively in my treatise called
"Giants, Angels and the Sons of God".
On this page you will see clearly from scripture that 'a son' cannot be
'a son' unless it is growing into manhood from conception; thus
rendering the "sons of God" fable (sons being angels not men) just that ... a fable!
Here is the issue: Firstly, is it scriptural to call angels sons (in any form) when they have
not experienced birth and childhood? Secondly, if angels are not sons (in any form) because they have
not experienced birth and childhood, then can the eternal Word (the Lord Jesus Christ) be called "the Son" previously
before having been begotten, and
before
His conception and birth, outside the sure word of prophecy? The
answer you will find will be a big NO! Let's summarize these
points raised for the sake of clarity and we will
come back to the 'eternal son' concept later in regards to Jesus and
the
Trinity aspect:
Can an angel be called 'a son' in any sense of the word? Especially when angels
don't have gender,
cannot engage in sexual intercourse,
cannot procreate, and when
only two of kind
on earth can reproduce according to Genesis 1:11-25! Or putting it in other words:
Can an angel be called 'a son' in any sense of the word when it has
not
been physically conceived or born but created; is not a sexual flesh and
blood creature; has not experienced childhood or growing into an adult
angel, or when God has placed a limit on His creation that only two of
a kind can reproduce?
Now I would like to make some factual statements. Actually
... scriptural statements, which will be fully backed up later
from the written word of God: The difference between angels
and man is in origin, function,
and
location. They are not the same species. They are not two of one
kind like man and woman, male and female. One is earth bound while the
other is angelic. One is physical while the other is
spiritual. One has opposite genders while the other has only one. We must also
remember what Jesus said in John 3:6, which is of utmost importance here:
"That which is born of the
flesh
is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
Paul goes a little bit further and deeper here (1 Cor. 15: 38-40) to
clarify this point when he says, "There is a natural body, and there
is a spiritual body (v. 44)":
"But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body (angels and men can't mix reproduction wise). All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one (1) kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies (2), and bodies terrestrial (3): but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another."
Repeating again ... "but the glory of the celestial (heavenly) is one, and the glory of the terrestrial (earthly) is another." The two are separate and cannot marry or find physical mutual intercourse. Here's that threefold witness again:
1. A natural body is a flesh body from man to beast, in the physical realm, according to Paul.
2. Then there is a terrestrial body which is a planet or star still in the physical realm, according to Paul.
3. Lastly, there is the celestial body,
which is in the spiritual realm (either the existing angelic or the
changed glorified natural state), according to Paul.
Remember, 1. has nothing to do, and can have nothing to do with 3.
while it remains in its natural (procreation) state ... "and to every seed his own body"! Just can't happen, end of story!
Additionally, and with regards to angels mingling their so-called
seed with man,
according to the Nephilim theory from the Apocrypha; apparently
relating to Genesis six (being extra
biblical commentary supported by the modern versions), how
can what is flesh be born from what is spirit? Jesus said it
simply
could not be done. As just stated, should this not be the end of the story while
putting to rest the unscriptural gibberish we have been confronted with, by
twisting a couple of verses, to prove the rest of the Bible does not
mean what it says? As only two of a kind can bred, it is
therefore impossible for angels
and
humans to breed together. Only man has been created with a seed
to
procreate and multiply (created as one individual), not angels.
Who
were
no doubt created en masse and not to procreate (Heb. 1:7).
Here is indisputable proof from Nehemiah 9:6 that God made angels (the
host of heaven) en masse. Angels were never created just as a pair to procreate
whereas earth bound creatures (including man) were. Understanding
He made the things of the
earth in two (male and female) just as the new world was once again re
populated in twos ... male and female (Gen. 6:19):
"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone (ONE person - not two or three); thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host,
the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is
therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven
worshippeth thee (not them)."
Mankind was created as just one individual man and one individual woman (Gen. 5:2) to populate the
earth with
gender and reproductive ability to go forth and multiply and have
dominion
over the earth. That's under their Maker! In contrast, angels were
created en masse with no need for
reproductive
organs, functions or gender. Furthermore, angels are likened to stars in the
Bible. Look up into the masses in the sky at night? Can you
count stars? "Science falsely so called" says even the physical
stars were birthed. My Bible says they were created (Gen.
1:16) just as angels were. The angels never experienced childhood, and
therefore cannot
be called children! That's sons or daughters of God! They have
never
experienced redemption and can never experience adoption either.
Only
children
can! Their function and purpose is totally different. Also,
because man can be redeemed unlike fallen angels (fallen stars), he can
be adopted
into a family. And those who become sons of God are those who
have been adopted into God's family. Angels cannot ever be
adopted because firstly, they are not born as sons but created en
masse. Whereas secondly, they never get a second chance;
redemption is not and was never purposed for them.
From the OT perspective
Simple and brief summery:
Stars are some times symbolic of angels in
scripture, as they too were made en masse as lights in the heavens and never conceived or birthed, as they
can never reproduce offspring, as they were never designed, destined or created to do so.
Man was created on the earth as a man and a woman as two of a kind, which can produce offspring.
Here's the
evidence to back the claims that angels are not born sons nor
children. You will see there is simply not one verse to claim an angel being 'a son'
or 'a child':
Ps. 82:6 ...
"and all of you are children
of the most
High
(sons and daughters of God)."
Deut. 14:1. "Ye are the
children
of the LORD your God (that's
saints not taints!)"
Ho. 1:10. "Yet
the number of the
children of Israel shall be as
the sand of the sea (in the future through reproduction and the principle of multiplication), which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it
shall
come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not
my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons
of the living God".
Unequivocally,
irrefutable, wouldn't you
say!? Men, not
spiritual
beings, are referred to as the sons of God in the Old Testament. Never, never, angels!
Is 43:6. "I
will say to the north,
Give up; and to the south,
Keep
not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from
the
ends of the earth (nothing to do with the sons of God coming down
from
heaven)."
From the NT perspective
Now we will go through
to the New Testament and see a new
criterion but always remaining consistent to whom the children or sons of God always are throughout scripture:
Gal.
3:26. "For ye are all the
children of God by
faith in Christ Jesus."
Only those who have
been grafted into
Christ, becoming part of the
seed
lineage, can be named "children of God", post Old Testament.
John 1:12. "But
as many as received
him (that's Christ), to them gave he
power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe
on
his name"
Then once in heaven, the adopted sons
of God (Christians) become
like the angels (not are angels but become like
angels) who cannot produce offspring or have sons, or
daughters, or families. This is where the natural body becomes the
spiritual, the terrestrial becomes the celestial, where the mortal must
put on immortality, and where the corruptible becomes the
incorruptible. It can't happen any other way outside resurrection
power through the cross. This is also in direct contrast to those
religionists who do err not knowing the scriptures, by building
doctrines on either tradition or presumption, as in the case
of Matthew 22:29-30. Jesus is speaking to the deceived
religionists here:
"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage (can't be reproduced through marriage), but are as the angels of God in heaven (not "as the sons of God" - they are the sons of God! - now glorified with new angelic type bodies).
There we have it! We are sons of men on earth through
procreation and birth ("given in marriage"), then become the sons of God through rebirth and
adoption, then enter heaven (putting on our new bodies) being like the angels because they are not
the same creation, who were created with the purpose and function to
procreate.
Luke 20:36.
"Neither can they (the redeemed) die any
more: for they are equal
unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the
children
of the resurrection"
In the resurrection we will be equal
to the angels (as or like
angels) but not angels. We are the children of
God and we are the children of the resurrection. Angels
cannot experience the resurrection (they are either with God or
damned). Nor can they experience adoption for that matter (because they are not
children nor can be redeemed),
and therefore they do not qualify to be called children of God.
Moreover, because they cannot be called children of God this covers
them not being called sons of God either.
Repeating again ... angels are not the
children
of the resurrection and are therefore not
the children of God through birth, nor the adopted children of God either!
Just
angels! Therefore, it should be utterly and totally clear that
angels are created different and that was to minister to God or be messengers
of God. Whereas man was created to go forth and multiply
(procreate). Two different calls and two different functions!
The doctrine of 'eternal sons' and 'the Trinity' connection debunked once and for all
Now with this
established that angels are not men, but angels; having never
experienced conception or birth, therefore they do not qualify in any
way to be called sons. Nor with any scriptural evidence to prove the
contrary, this opens up a whole new understanding for those who are
seeking the truth of God's word. Did you get that ... this
opens up a whole different and new place of understanding when one
wants to trust the word of God and not the words of men? Hence,
we can no longer ignore the position and status of Jesus being the only
begotten Son of God AFTER conception and birth as well of its biblical
ramifications. Take this next verse f'instance:
Heb. 2:16. "For verily he took not
on him the nature
of
angels;
but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
Looks like a
huge
difference to me! Jesus NEVER took on the nature of angels
by coming down to earth as the manchild. In the Old Testament He
came as the angel of the Lord but in the New Testament He takes
on the seed of Abraham, a
man, and becomes lower than the angels in this instance ... "who
was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death
(Heb. 2:9)"! The nature of angels and the seed of Abraham being
two
distinct things. Angels don't have families to bring up whereas
Abraham had a family. He was also begotten (Gen. 11:26). He
also had a time of conception and a time of birth. And those that
are adopted into this family
are known as sons of Abraham. A picture of the sons of God in
God's promised family.
Quick summary in the levels of glory as that threefold witness again (never in equality or coequally):
1. Jesus in the OT as God almighty, the
Spirit no man can see, manifests Himself (comes in the form of) an
angel (Gen. 18:3). Here, above man and NEVER as a son at this point in histrory.
2. Next He comes in the flesh as a man and making Himself lower than the
angels (Heb. 2:7). That's on mans level this time. Born of a
woman. Born as the begotten Son of God this time.
3. Furthermore, after the resurrection He is glorified above the angels
(Heb. 1:4). His inheritance as the faithful Son of God now King
of Kings and Lord of lords. Above man and angels.
Therefore, Jesus is found at various levels due to His humility,
His taking on humanity, and glorification. But never as one
consistent, coexistent, coequal, coeternal, God the Son, being always of the
same equal substance (whatever that means), the second Person only of
the Godhead, always within the ongoing so-called Trinity.
There is also no symbolic pictures or typology or shadows in scripture
portraying angels as sons either. Only of the sons of men and those who
get adopted into God's family. Therefore, we must have turned
over about every stone and have conclusively found that sons have to be
begotten, conceived and born to be sons. Jesus could not have
become the firstborn of many brethren, nor become a son in any sense of
the word either, unless the prophesied Word had become flesh, was born of a
woman, was born in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was born as "the
firstborn
among many brethren".
Here is an important verse form Hebrews 5:1:
"Who
in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death".
Jesus was never a son before because He was never a flesh and blood man. Angelic man, yes! However, the days of
His flesh
was to come, fulfilled when He came as the manchild, when He came to
earth as flesh and blood, dependant on His Father (as man) for
everything, after arriving as the baby Jesus as a man child or Son.
There had never been "in the days of his flesh" before. Therefore, He
could never have experienced being a son before. Quite obvious really,
once you examine these scriptures over again prayerfully and relying on
God above man for His revelation.
Adam was
a son of God according to the seed lineage, recorded back to Adam, who were sons of God also (Luke 3: 23-38).
Jesus, the second Adam, became
the Son of man born into this
lineage. Because He was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin, and came
from heaven, this was the eternal Word becoming flesh ... Jesus
the only begotten Son of God. Thus, this is a true statement
... Jesus is not only the ETERNAL Word but also now the BEGOTTEN Son! Two
different functions, but the same person and the same God. Hence, the title of this treatise!
In conclusion, what does this tell us here? Quite plainly, there
was and is no coequal God the Son existing eternally in the Godhead as
a second person of a Trinity. Jesus is God the Creator,
the everlasting Father, from the beginning to end, and not the Son of
God until He was born of a woman. Or there is no reason for a son to be
begotten, conceived, born, and experience growing in statue and grace.
Jesus did all these things to qualify to be called a Son ...
Psalms 2:7:
"I will declare
the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten thee."
That's the prophetic word! Prophetic ... meaning, the word foreseeing
and looking ahead. Here is the evidence that the word (okay taken
further) ...
the scriptures can
foresee the future and declare authoritatively, with 100% accuracy, what was going to taker place and be fulfilled to a Tee (Gal. 3:8):
"And
the scripture,
foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith
(the coming of the Son to kiss and behold), preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
What did the scripture foresee and predict in advance about the coming Son, who had not been begotten at this stage?
"Thou art my Son;
(because) this day have I begotten thee"! Because He was begotten, it could be said of
this day He become the Son.
Fulfilled in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5, as well as Hebrews 5:5
(there's those three witnesses again confirming the truth):
"Thou art my Son,
to day have I begotten thee."
Why His Son? Because He was begotten on that day! There had
to be a day. Followed by this statement which could now be made a
reality:
"
I will (future tense) be to him a Father, and
he shall (future tense) be to me a Son?"
This never happened before. Meaning, Jesus could not have been a Son to
the Father before. This cancels out the so-called eternal
coexisting Sonship of the eternal Trinity, creating a huge flaw
in its theology, and therefore rendering the Trinity unbiblical and a very subtle way to undermine the divinity of Jesus.
Always God but not always the Son - Always God but never three people
Even the full name the Lord Jesus
Christ is the threefold witness in itself.
Lord ... The highest authority - God
Jesus ... The Word become flesh - God as man
Christ ... The fulfilment of this promise - the anointed one from God
All God and all the same person!