And we want to look at the sonship
of Christ and the eternal sonship of Him. So let's just break in
right in verse 4 and read for a while. Hebrews chapter 1, being
made so much better than the angels as He hath by inheritance,
obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of
the angels said He, at any time, Thou art my Son this day have
I begotten thee. And again, I will be to him a
father, he shall be to me a son. And again, when he bringeth in
the first begotten into the world, he said, let all the angels of
God worship him. And of the angels, he saith,
who maketh his angel spirits and his ministers a flame of
fire. But watch verse 8. But unto the
Son, he says, thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is
the scepter of thy kingdom." I want you to notice that he
calls the Lord God. Thy throne, O God. We're not exactly exegeting this
text, but looking overall at the subject of the eternal Sonship
of Christ and His Deity. By eternal Sonship we mean that
He has always existed. He did not become the Son of
God at any time. He has been the Son of God in
all eternity. And as an introduction to this
present study, I set out to preach on and contend for the holy and
divine divinity of Christ our Lord and our Savior. Now, I find we can't hardly preach
on the person of God, nor can we preach on the Trinity, really,
without getting into the matter at hand, that Christ is an eternal
One and that He shares in the personal relationship of the
divine nature with the Father. Now, suppose I should ask this
question of people here or in other places. Do you believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Simple question. Do you
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? That is, do you
believe that Jesus Christ is right now, and when He were upon
this earth, the very Son of God? You would probably cry out, yes,
yes, yes, He is the Son of God, because every mouth confesses
as a Christian that Christ is indeed the very Son of God. Who is there who is a Christian
and would deny the Sonship of our Lord? Suppose I should phrase
the question a little bit differently and ask it this way. Do you believe
that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God? Now, this asks of
you, do you believe that Jesus Christ was eternally and everlastingly
the Son of God? Now, that before He became incarnate,
before He assumed our flesh or nature, before He was conceived
or born in the womb of the Virgin, before He was a human man walking
about among people, before He came into this world wearing
our flesh or nature. In other words, was Christ the
Son of God before the Incarnation? Or did He become the Son of God
at and by the Incarnation? Now the key word here is the
one eternal. Eternal Sonship. That's the thing
that we inquire about and are interested in discussing in this
study. From what point of time are consecration
May we refer to Christ as the Son of God. Which do you say? In what sense is Christ the Son
of God? From eternity or from His incarnation? Was He the Son of God before
He became the fleshly servant of Jehovah? What, if any, difference
is there between Christ being called the Son of God and the
Son of Man. He is referred to by both in
the Scripture. Now, the problem is not solved
as quickly or easily as we might imagine. The problem is not solved
when we all agree Jesus is the Son of God. The whole question
must be resolved in this question, was Jesus the Son of God before
His incarnation, or did He become the Son of God by or after the
incarnation? Do you ask, is this important?
Does this make any difference in our Christian life or faith
or our theology? I think so because the doctrine
of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christ's eternal deity are
actually connected together and have a relation under His eternal
Sonship. So that the whole thing would
stand or would fall down together. J.C. Philpott, a Baptist writer
of centuries gone by, pointed out that there are four leading
eras which appear at one time or another in the history of
the church that have perverted the doctrine of the Sonship of
our Lord. He said, number one, the leading
error may be that Christ became in and by the Incarnation, the
Son of God. One proof text that those who
hold for that might use to support their view is Luke 1.35, that
holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
of God. Now the place to deal with this
position is whether the human nature of the Lord, as distinct
from the divine nature, was ever called the Son of God. Admittedly, the whole theanthropic
person of Christ our Lord, the full person, the co-personality,
if you will, of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the hypostatic
union, The two natures that are unionized together, forming the
one person of the Lord Jesus Christ, were very often called
the Son of God. Yet not the human nature alone,
not the human nature in and of itself. The humanity of Christ
could never be the Son of God in the same way that the divine
nature is the Son of God. So one pointed out on the question,
more than a hundred years ago now, if the Incarnation called
the Son of the Holy Spirit, that if He became the Son in the Incarnation,
then He would be called the Son of the Holy Spirit rather than
the Son of God. For the Incarnation occurred
by the miraculous conception of the Spirit of God, of the
humanity of Christ in the womb of the Virgin. Yet, is He ever
called the Son of the Holy Spirit? We think not. His incarnation
did not make Him a Son any more than it made Him to be very God. He was both before the incarnation
in flesh. In the same way He was God, so
was He Son before the incarnation in flesh. Secondly, there are
a few who consider Christ to have become the Son of God by
His exaltation to the mediatorial throne of glory after His ascension,
that He entered or became Son by His exaltation in or upon
the right hand of God the Father. But they mistake the thing as
if he became both heir and son at the same time and by the same
act. But he enters not into heaven
to become the Son of God, but because he is already the Son
of God and hath done the work of a son. I agree that they are
really aiming to subvert his deity by taking away his sonship. And I think that that view is
an attack upon the sonship and the deity of Christ our Lord. At no time did he pass into the
possession of actual sonship. At no time was he clothed with
deity because he had always been divine and a partaker of the
divine nature. These he had from everlasting. Now thirdly, there's another
view of the Sonship of the Lord you'll find some places in the
history of Christianity. And others say that originated
Sonship from His resurrection. That Christ became the Son of
God by the resurrection. And they'll pull out those texts
in the 2nd Psalm and that one in Acts 13, 32 and 33. Thou art my son this day, have
I begotten you are thee." This view is very easy, I think, to
disprove. For before he either died or
revived again from the dead, he did some things. Number one,
God twice proclaimed him to be his son before he died. That
would be Matthew 3.17 and 17 and verse 5. Secondly, Peter confessed him
to be the son of the living God before he died. And that, said
the Lord, is a divine revelation. The Father has showed this unto
you in Matthew chapter 16. Thirdly, there is the parable
of the vinedresser or the vineyard. He too was a son before he was
sent to the vineyard to confront those who were the husbandmen. Fourthly, the Roman soldiers
testimony before the resurrection of our Lord. As he saw and heard,
he said, truly this man was the Son of God. Matthew 27 and verse
54. And then fourthly, a few have
contended that Christ was a Son only by vesture of office. Because He had a particular office
to perform, He therefore is invested with sonship relative unto that
office. And they profess to hold to his
deity, they confess or holler about the Trinity, and yet they
rob him of his sonship by denying him eternal sonship, that he
has always been so. In like manner, some only give
him a sonship by virtue of the everlasting covenant. that because
there's a covenant, the Son, therefore, is made a Son in connection
with that covenant. How could this covenant make
Him God's Son is a question we would ask. Rather, was He the
covenant head? Because He was already the Son,
He is the covenant head of the elect. Some under the guise,
on the other hand, of honoring and advancing truth have made
a play on distinguishing between Christ as the Word and Christ
as the Son of God. This they make two distinct things
and distinguish. Some say that Christ was from
everlasting the Word, but that He only became the Son by the
incarnation, by assuming the flesh and the likeness of His
elect. But assuming our flesh, might
make Him the Son of Man, yet it could never make Him to be
the Son of God if He were not so before and from everlasting. But He is the Word only because
His peculiar and unique relationship unto the Eternal Father as the
Eternal Son. He is the Word only because God
speaks to him, to men by and through him. He is the Word that
was made flesh. His Sonship, therefore, is the
primary foundation of the second. John 1.1, In the beginning was
the Word. The Word was with God and was
God. The Word was God. Why is He called the Word? He
is the Word only because He is very God. There in Hebrews 1,
verses 2 and 3, half in these last days, spoken unto us by
His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also
He made the world, who is the brightness of His glory and the
express image of His person, and upholding all things by the
word of His power. It was not, strictly speaking,
the humanity of Christ, the assumed nature that was the brightness
of the glory and the express image of the person of God, for
His humanity was the likeness of sinful flesh as to its outward
look. Romans chapter 8 and verse 3.
His humanity was in the form of a servant and in the likeness
of men. Philippians 2 and verse 7. The divine nature was the Son
of God, or more precisely, God the Son before the incarnation. Thus such testimonies as these. Matthew 3 and 17. This is My
beloved Son. in whom I am well pleased." That
was said at His baptism. Matthew 17 and verse 5, This
is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. This said at His
transfiguration when He shined brightly before the eyes of the
three. And the confessions of Peter
in Matthew chapter 16 and verse 16, Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God. Matthew 14, 33, Of a truth thou
art the Son of God. And these are not to be restricted
or applied to the humanity of Christ only apart from the divine
nature. He was not called Son of God
because of his supernatural birth as the heretical Sothenians held
in their theology? Or did he acquire it by his redemptive
work? He did not become the Son by
redeeming? Or when he was raised from the
dead? Or even when he ascended to heaven to the right hand of
God? Or when his human nature was
adopted by God as the Harminians sometimes hold out? But Herman
Bevinck declared, He is the Son of God by nature and from eternity."
Now, I want to introduce you to a term you might have run
across reading theology books, or you might not have run across
them, and the expression is eternal generation. And we have it in
connection with this subject today and the Lord Jesus Christ. You'd run across this subject
in the writings of such men as John Gill, whom I like, Bunyan,
also you'd find it there, J.C. Philpott, John Owen, Thomas Goodwin. To name a few, you would find
them discussing something called eternal generation. First, let
me explain that the phrase or the term was coined for a specific
reason. It was coined early as a tool
against Arius and the Arians' view of Christ. It was coined
by the Nicene Council in the 4th century. Arius taught that
Christ at one time was not. He taught that Christ was not
a being, not inexistent. He taught that He was made or
formed and that He was not co-eternal and not of the same substance
with God the Father. which became a denial of the
Sonship of God's Son as well as the denial of the Deity of
our Lord. For if He is created, He is neither
eternal nor is He divine. In short, Arius taught that Christ
was generated but not eternally present with the Father. And the term eternal generation
then was used to express a particular purpose, and that is the uncreated
and eternal sonship of Christ, the Son of God, that he was begotten,
not made, before all worlds, and therefore one in substance,
unity, power, and attributes with the Father. Eternal generation
adds to the word eternal to correct the fault of the Arian that Christ
was at one time generated, created, or made, or begotten as to His
living being. That He was not existing at one
time and then existing at another. And I must repeat, this takes
away both His eternal Sonship and also His Deity. So let's put some Scripture to
the matter. John 1.18, the only begotten
Son who is in the bosom of the Father. John 3.16 calls Him His
only begotten Son. Psalms 2 and 7. I will declare
the decree. The Lord has said unto me, Thou
art my Son this day have I begotten thee. Hebrews 1.5 that we read,
For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art
My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. And again, never to an
angel did He say, I will be to you a father, and you unto Me
a son." Now how many are called the sons of God in Scripture
in a lesser way? Adam was. Luke 3 and verse 38. Israel is called God's son in
Exodus 4 and verse 22. The angels, no doubt, in that
text in Job 1 and verse 6. The godly, perhaps, in Genesis
6 and verse 4. And the saved in 1 John 3, 1
through 3. Beloved, now are we the sons
of God. Yet none of these are sons of
God in the same sense as is Christ our Lord. None of these. have the sameness of essence
as Christ has with the Father. None else share all of His essence
and His being and His attributes and such like. Now, in Psalms
2 and verse 7, it cannot design His origin or beginning when
it said, This day have I begotten Thee, because He is eternal. And when Peter and Paul both
use this text, and they applied to the resurrection or concerning
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, it cannot mean
that He became the Son of God at or through His resurrection
because He was the Son of God before His death and resurrection. In Acts 2 and verse 36, Peter
testifies that God made M-A-D-E, Jesus, both Lord and
Christ. And yet, he was both before his
death, his resurrection, and his ascension. And yet, his lordship,
therefore, was manifested and was fully brought into exercise,
as was his sonship by the incarnation, the death, and the resurrection. J. C. Philpott has written a
good article, I think, on the eternality, the eternal Sonship
of the Lord. Let me quote something that he
wrote in his book. The Incarnation and the Resurrection
stand on the same footing as manifestations of the Son of
God. By the Incarnation, He was manifested. By the Resurrection, He was declared
to be the Son of God with power, but neither that by which He
was manifested or that which He has declared made Him the
Son, for He was so before He was either manifested or declared."
An excerpt from Philpot. The Son is very God. In Hebrews 1 and verse 8, unto
the Son He saith, O God, Thy throne is forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is
the scepter of Thy kingdom. quoted from Psalm 45, verse 6
and verse 7. Now, notice what the text said,
the one we read first. 1. That Christ is and was the
eternal Son of God, for such was spoken to Him before His
incarnation. 2. It establishes His deity,
for the Son is called God. Unto the Son, He saith, Thy throne,
O God. He shares a common sovereignty
with God. Thy scepter is a scepter of righteousness. And number four, it throws down
the civilian-like doctrine that Jesus is not God, only the Son
of God. You'll find this distinction
made in history, and you'll find it made by some today in our
time, that Jesus is not God, He is the Son of God. Yet as sure as He is the Son
of God, so also is He God. What's wrong with saying that
Christ is God the Son? He's the Son of God and He's
God the Son. Do not all say that God is to
be called God the Father? Do any object to the Eternal
God? Then why would any object to
the term, the Eternal Fatherhood of God? Was not God a Father
before? Was not Christ the Son long before
He was ever brought into this world? Did God only become a
Father when Christ became incarnate? No. He had been the Father of
the Son. Let's look back to another point,
and that is those who deny the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. Not denying His Sonship, but
denying the eternal Sonship of God and those who say He is not
God, He is the Son of God. And the question is, what effect
does this have upon the doctrine of the Trinity? If one without
proper deity, If one less than divine, or inferior in nature,
or a created being, is part of the Divine Trinity, what effect
would that have upon him? The unity, the essence, the nature
of the Trinity would be altered and destroyed by such an arrangement. Another thing is evident from
the Scripture, especially where the Jews were concerned, and
that is that the Messiah and Sonship were actually co-extensive
with the Jews at one time. When a Jew believed in Christ
as the first Messiah, he also believed Him to be the second,
the Son of God. All of Jewry believed that Messiah
would come and that He would be the very Son of God when He
appeared. Psalm 2 and verse 7. Isaiah 9 and verse 6. A son is born. Therefore, any
Jew who received Christ as their Messiah at the same time received
Him as the Son of God. Such elect Jews as Peter, Zacharias,
Nathaniel, Simeon, Anna, Elizabeth received Him as both Messiah
and Son, believing upon Him. Though Judaism proper crucified
Jesus Christ, yet it was not that they doubted that Messiah
would be God's Son, only that Christ was true to His claim. Not only do Messiahship and Sonship
go together, but the Father and the Son must be received in their
proper relationship that they share. None can have the Father
without the Son. Now, many have tried that. In
our day, many try to go around Christ, but it can't be done.
None can come to God except through and by the Son. In fact, Jesus
said in John 10, verse 30, I and My Father are one. John 14, verse 6, No man cometh
unto Me but by the Father. 1 John 2, verse 22 and 23, Who
is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ. He is antichrist that denieth
the Father and the Son, whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath
not the Father. 1 John 4, verse 15, Whosoever
shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him,
and he in God. 1 John 5, verse 20, We know that
the Son of God is come, and hath given us understanding that we
may know Him that is true, and be in Him that is true, even
His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal
life, Jesus the Son. I agree therefore with Philpott,
nor can there be any walking in the light of God's countenance,
any fellowship with the family of God, any saving knowledge
of the cleansing blood of the Lamb where Christ's real Sonship
is denied." Salvation is contingent on His Sonship. He is the Son
of God who came out of the bosom of the Father, who reveals the
Father to the elect of God. Whosoever calls Jesus only a
man impugns his deity calls him a bastard as the true and proper
being is eternal sonship. It is not the mother of God that
saves us, my brother. It is the Son of God. It is not
Mary who went to the Father, but the Son who came out from
the Father. The Son hath come. He hath given
us an understanding. He hath revealed the Father unto
us. Now, there are two ways that
the devil seeks to hurt the church. Number one, of course, is by
persecution from without. We've seen that in days gone
by. I fear that it is beginning to
loom over us again. But the second way that the devil
does harm under the church is by perversion from within, perverting,
corrupting the doctrines of Christianity and of the Bible. And of all
the errors, those concerning Christ are the most damning. Of all errors that men make,
of all errors that they hold, those concerning Christ are the
most dangerous and do the greatest harm to the cause of Christ,
the churches, and the work of the gospel and such like. Jesus is the eternal son of God.