1. "ETERNAL" VS. "INCARNATIONAL" SONSHIP :

Throughout this century a controversy has been building momentum over the exact nature of Christ's Sonship. Historic orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Creeds set forth what is called the doctrine of "Eternal Sonship." Simply stated, the title "Son of God" has reference to Christ's Deity -- thus, Christ is eternally "the Son."

The opposing view is called "Incarnational Sonship." Basically, "Son of God" applies to Jesus after the Incarnation -- the title implies inferiority to the Father and so has reference to Christ's Humanity. This view has been held by some heavy hitters: Adam Clarke, Arthur Custance, the late Walter Martin, John MacArthur, and others.

Personally, I see that both sides make some decent points from Scripture. However, the "Incarnational" teachers often glibly dismiss the orthodox position as "Origenian philosophy" which finds absolutely no basis in Scripture. While I remain largely undecided on this issue, the following brief points force me to pause before denying orthodoxy on this point.

(1) The Jews of Christ's day understood the title "Son of God" to be the equivilent of "equal with God" - cf. John 10:33, 36. Notice that Jesus never denied this. Furthermore, John 5:18 states that Jesus said "that God was His Father," thereby "making Himself equal with God." The true significance of this verse rests in the fact that, contrary to some who do not read it carefully, this entire phrase is not quoting the Jews but is the comment of John himself! Surprisingly, the late Walter Martin - himself of the "Incarnational" stripe - made this very point in his book Jehovah of the Watchtower!

(2) I must agree with David Dean, the former editor of Resurrection. He writes: "In biblical thought, 'sonship' indicates possession of the same nature or qualities" (Resurrection, Vol. 91, #1, Jan.-March, 1988, p. 13). In a footnote, Dean explains: "Observe Jesus' argument with the unbelieving Jews in John 8:34-44 where the Jews affirm sonship first with Abraham (v. 39) and then with God (v. 41); that is, they claim to have the same nature or characteristics as Abraham or God. Jesus denied this on the grounds that their attitudes and actions are contrary to the nature of Abraham (vv. 39-40) and God (v. 42), but their actions correspond to the nature of the Devil (v. 44) ... " (ibid., p. 14, fn. #11, emphasis mine).

(3) If "Son of God" has no reference to Deity, then how are we to understand Hebrews 7:3 - "Without father or mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God ..." ?

In addition to the above three Scriptural points, there is also some pre-Nicene Patristic witness to equating "Son of God" with Deity. Theophilus of Antioch wrote, "He is not His Son in the sense in which poets and romancers relate the birth of sons to gods, but rather in the sense in which the truth speaks of the Word as eternally immanent ... " (cf. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 99).

Likewise, Athenagoras rejects "the objection that there is something ridiculous in God's having a son," and "protests that God's Son is not like the children of men, but is 'the Father's Word in idea and in actualization'" (ibid., p. 99).

2. JESUS CHRIST WAS TRULY HUMAN:

Christian orthodoxy has always affirmed the true humanity of Jesus Christ (based on passages like John 8:40). This fact found its greatest expression at Chalcedon, where it was affirmed that Jesus Christ was "cosubstantial with us in manhood, like us in all things except sin" - note the words "with us". Are we truly human? If so, then orthodoxy affirms that our Lord was as "human" as we are!

In fact, the fact of Christ's pre-existence makes Him more "Human" than anyone, for man is in reality a copy of Jesus. While man was created "in" the image of God, Jesus is the Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3) in which man was created.

Furthermore, orthodoxy has stood against heresies like docetism (which denied Christ's true and proper humanity), always maintaining to the contrary that Christ had to be truly man: " ... if His flesh had differed in any respect (sinlessness excepted) from ordinary human flesh, the parallel between Him and the first Adam would not have been valid, and man's sinful nature could not have been reconciled to God. The Word Himself fashioned His own humanity in the Virgin's womb; and if it be asked why He did this instead of creating some altogether novel substance, the answer is that the humanity which was to be the instrument of salvation had to be identical with that which needed to be saved" (J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 147-148).

Being that orthodoxy affirms that Jesus was truly man (per Phil'p. 2:7-8 and Heb. 2:14; 10:12), the same holds also to His true conception in the womb of the virgin Mary. The Jesus of orthodox trinitarianism is truly "the Son of Mary" (in accordance with Scripture- Genesis 3:15 and Gal. 4:4). Thus, when asked, "Did Jesus have a beginning?," the orthodox response should be "Absolutely, according to the flesh" (cf. Acts 2:30; Romans 1:3; 8:3; Heb. 5:7).

However, the fact that Jesus' conception/birth was unique is shown by the fact that "In Gal. 4:4 genomenos ek gynaikos is not identical with the Hebraistic expression gennetos gynaikon, one born of women, meaning simply a human person. Notice how, in Gal. 4, where ginesthai is used of Christ, genasthai is used when speaking of Ishmael and Isaac (vv. 4, 23, 24, 29)." (Philip E. Hughes, The True Image, Eerdmans, p. 216, fn. #4).

Scripture teaches that a body was "prepared" (Grk. katartizo = "to complete thoroughly") for the Word to literally become "flesh" (John 1:14; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil'p. 2:7-8; Heb. 10:5). Thus, orthodoxy holds that true God became true man.

As such, Jesus was truly "the Son of Abraham" (Matt. 1:1; Luke 19:9; Gal. 3:8, 16; Heb. 2:16) and "the Son of David" (Matt. 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; Luke 1:32, 69f.; John 7:42; Romans 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8; Rev. 22:16). Jesus was truly the one "like unto Moses" (Deut. 18:15-19; Acts 3:22), the nation of Israel being truly "His people" (Psalm 22:22; Matt. 1:21; Heb. 2:17).

Yet the fact of Jesus' lineage in no way contradicts His pre-existence as God. For instance, while setting forth in unmistakeable language that Jesus is indeed "the offspring of David," the Scripture boldly proclaims that He is also "the root of David" (Rev. 22:16; cf. 5:5)! Furthermore, many post-Gospel statements concerning His humanity are careful to use the qualifying phrase "according to the flesh" (cf. Acts 18:9; Romans 1:3-4; 9:5).

The Apostle Paul assures us that "though (Jesus) was rich," yet for us He "became poor" (2 Cor. 8:9). When and in what way was Jesus "rich"? The answer is in Phillippians 2, where Paul teaches that Christ set aside the rights and priveleges of Deity ("equality with God") to become Man and die for our sins. Jesus Christ is in every way "the Last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45) and "the Second Man" (1 Cor. 15:47).

Concerning Jesus' death, orthodoxy affirms that it was true and real in accordance with Hebrews 9:23-26. After all, a real resurrection from the dead presupposes a real death! Orthodoxy believes with Tertullian that "although Christ is God, yet being also a man 'He died according to the Scriptures' (1 Cor. 15:3)" (Treatise On the Soul, chapter 55).

I in no way claim to "understand" just how such can be - the God-man is a "mystery" (1 Tim. 3:16). But let us note that Scripture uses the same qualification of His death as of His lineage. He reconciled us "in the body of His flesh" (Col. 1:22), having suffered "in the flesh" (1 Peter 4:1), being put to death "in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18).

Let us also recognize that Jesus' humanity was no "temporary outer form." No, Jesus Christ is forever the God-man in glorified flesh, being the "firstfruits" of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20, 23; James 1:18), "the firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18), and "the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29; cf. Hebrews 13:23). If our life is to be "eternal," then so His must also be (John 14:19).

Furthermore, as no one can see God (i.e., as He is - Ex. 33:20; John 1:18; 4:24; 6:46; 1 Tim. 6:16; Heb. 11:27; 1 Jn. 4:12), Jesus is forever God made visible (Job 19:26; Matt. 5:8; Luke 10:22; John 14:6-10; 17:24; 1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Cor. 4:6; Heb. 12:14; 1 John 3:2; Rev. 22:4).

In closing, orthodoxy teaches that Jesus is Theanthropos, the God-man. Scripture, while admittedly not using this as a specific title, clearly teaches the concept: "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). This is indeed a "mystery" (Grk. musterion), and we should respect what is revealed and what is not (Deut. 29:29). This is further emphasized by the fact that musterion is from muo, a Greek word meaning "TO SHUT THE MOUTH." Orthodoxy holds to what is revealed by faith, affirming a true conception, birth, life, death and resurrection for "the man Christ Jesus," yet also affirming that His flesh was a "veil" for His Deity (Heb. 10:20). Amen.

* Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976) by Norman Geisler - I am no great philosopher, and my exposure to competing worldviews is limited. In the day that we live (& witness) in, this can often be crippling. This is why, when recently engaging a die-hard relativist, I found myself reaching for this book on my shelf. I have done so many times before. It occured to me at that time that I had not yet promoted it in my newsletter. I'll make it very easy: GET THIS BOOK. It is an invaluable reference tool. All of the major methodologies and worldviews - agnosticism, rationalism, fideism, experientialism, pragmatism, combinationalism - are given organized treatment that won't go over your head. Geisler is a true asset to the modern Body of Christ.

"Children's children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers." PROVERBS 17:6

I want to focus here on the second phrase in the above verse of Scripture. " ... the glory of children are their fathers."

In today's world, many American children grow up without their fathers around. In the worst cases, they may not even know who their fathers are. This is a widespread problem in many communities. It's got to stop.

You see, these children grow up with NO GLORY. Imagine this for a moment. I think of a young girl I know whose father is in prison and has never once done anything for her. NO GLORY. Again, two small boys who haven't seen their daddy since he divorced mommy. NO GLORY. And just how many brief moments of sexual pleasure have resulted in kids with NO GLORY - all because "dad" just "isn't ready" for that kind of responsibility?

We Christians need to do something about this! These children need to know that there is an Almighty God in their corner. And this in a very specific sense -- Ps. 10:14; 68:5; 82:3; 146:9. I don't have all the answers, but I know what James wrote: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this; To visit the fatherless ... in their affliction." (James 1:27).

We have enough "deadbeat dads"; let's not be "deadbeat Christians"! We are to show forth the character of Christ to this broken world. I pray that God will make us sensitive to this need in the areas in which we live -- may we all search these children out. If we don't ... well, we're not - but you know who is? The drug dealers, the cults, the child molesters -- and the Devil himself.

Some of you may already know a child who has "no glory." Be there for that child in whatever capacity he/she needs you to be. If you honestly don't know anyone like that, and you don't know where to begin - start making it a priority in prayer.

Here's another thought for us all. The Bible commands us to care for "widows" throughout its text. Now, you may say, "I don't know any widows." But isn't Scripture's point that "widows" have no husband to care for them? Wouldn't the struggling, abandoned single mothers of today qualify - regardless of the fact that their "husband" might be technically alive "somewhere"? Shouldn't we regard such as "practical widows"? Selah.

May God help us all to "learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow" (Isa. 1:17).