Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Can The Deity of Jesus Be Called The Son of God?


Creedal Statement #21 of The Apostolic Creed: “Thereby, and because of generation and redemption, reasonably termed the Son of God.”
This article is an excerpt from my book "Godhead Theology," Look for it at Amazon Books.

 Estimated reading time: 4.5 minutes.

 John 1:18 “ No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NASB)
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.”
Luke 1:35 “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

The word “Thereby” is in consideration of all that has gone before in this paragraph of the Creed:  1. The manifestation in the flesh of God Almighty; 2. The conception caused by the Holy Spirit; 3. The birth from the virgin Mary; 4. The incarnation of God and man consubstantiated in one person; 5. the name “Jesus” meaning Yahweh Savior; 6. The homo-ousios of Christ to the Father; 7. And the homoi-ousios of Christ with humans.

When we consider Jesus being the Son of God because of His “generation” we have the event of God Himself being birthed into our world through the matrix of a woman’s womb. The Greek New Testament (EN1) renders John 1:18 thusly, “θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. Here John calls Jesus “monogenēs theos” English: “only (uniquely) begotten God.”(EN2) In this case it is the Incarnated God that is called the Son—because of His having undergone generation. Therefore, in this sense, it is not the humanity of Christ alone that the Scripture designates as the Son, but the God-man as He is in Himself. It is in this sense that the ancient Monarchians viewed the Son of God as God. In this writer’s opinion this definition must be allowed because of the weight of manuscript evidence for John 1:18. To confirm this view one is reminded of the use of the phrase “son of... .” One is said to be the “son of” whatever he exemplifies or manifests. One who dwells in the desert, for example, is said to be a “Son of the Desert.” Also, in this way the brothers James and John were said to be “Sons of Thunder;” and, Joses’ name was changed by the apostles to Barnabas (“Son of Consolation” Acts 4:36). Thus, these persons were understood to be the very nature, character, or essence of what they were the “sons” of. Understanding this helps us comprehend the encounter between Jesus and the Jews in John chapter 10 where Jesus had said that He and the Father were One. The Jews then took up stones to stone Him. Jesus asked them for what good work they were preparing to stone Him. They said clearly, “For no any good work, but because you being a man have made yourself God.” Jesus, in His defense said, “You say I blaspheme because I said, I am the Son of God.” To the Jews, then, Jesus had called Himself God because He said He was the Son of God. As one is the “Son of the Desert”, or “Sons of Thunder”, or the “Son of Consolation,” Jesus was the Son of God. He embodied all that was God the Father (John 10:30ff; 1 Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9). This, then, makes Peter’s confession more powerful than we ever knew, when he proclaimed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16).

 In fairness it should be pointed out, however, that the Textus Receptus(EN3) reads “θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.” This text has John calling Jesus “ho monogenēs huios;” in English “the only (uniquely) begotten Son.”  The Son, it is argued, is limited to His humanity and is inferior to the Father as the term “Son” would imply. I understand that concept, but acknowledge that it does not answer the best Greek manuscript evidence of John 1:18, “θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο” (“monogenēs theos”) “only (uniquely) begotten God.” Twentieth and twenty-first centuries Oneness adherents have a proclivity to view the Son of God as limited only to the humanity of Christ. This, of course, aids in fielding the queries concerning the differences demonstrated between Jesus as God and Jesus as man.  In a very particular way this is true. However, one can not disallow the God-man concept of the Son in some general manner. The New Testament seems to use the term “Son” in two very different ways: One who embodies and reflects the character, even the very essence of someone or something else; and, one who is the offspring of another. We must depend on the context to sort out the meaning of the term.

Another consideration for the title of “Son” is: “because of ... redemption.” In order to facilitate redemption it was obligatory that the Savior be at once God and man. In this sense He held the position of federal head of both families. The God Jesus is often referred to as the “Son of God,” and the man Jesus as the “Son of Man.” The glory with which Jesus prayed to be glorified (recorded in John 17), was the preordained works of redemption (i.e. His passion, shedding His blood for the redemption of mankind,  and resurrection).(EN4) This, He could only accomplish as the incarnate God-man: the glory of the passion in His humanity, the cutting of the blood covenant by the shedding of blood of both God and man, and the glory of His resurrection in His deity. Jesus told Martha, the sister of Mary and Lazarus, that He was the resurrection and the life;(EN5) Paul wrote that He alone has immortality(EN6). Further, only in the incarnation was the blood of God shed (Acts 20:28). In this sense the Sonship of the God-man is manifest. It, then, is established that the “Sonship” of Jesus Christ embraces both natures of the God-man.

 Apostolically Speaking,
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes

End Notes
1 The designation Novum Testamentum Graece normally refers to the Nestle-Aland editions, named after the scholars who led the critical editing work. The text, edited by the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (Institute for New Testament Textual Research) is currently in its 28th edition, abbreviated NA28. The Nestle-Aland text is the primary source for most contemporary New Testament translations, although most are translations of the edition that was available at the time of translation. The Nestle-Aland text is also the standard for academic work in New Testament studies.
2 Text: NKJVmg; RSVmg; NREV; ESV; NSAB; NIV (TNIV); NEBmg; NJBmg; NAB; NLT; HCSBmg;
3 Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516—a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus' edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text, and included some missing parts back translated from the Latin Vulgate.
4 John 2:1 8-21 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
5 John 11:21 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
6 1 Tim 6:14-16 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
Apostolically Speaking
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)

Read other essays from the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Dual Nature Of Jesus Of Nazareth"

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"

"Glory With The Father"

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"

"How Is God One?"

"Hebrew Monotheism"


"The Apostolic Creed"

"Jesus Is Father God"

"Homoousia And The Creed Of Nicaea"

"The Triquetra And Modalism"

"Modalism, Simultaneous Or Sequential?"

"Micah 5:2-4, An Exegesis"


"Elohim, the Plural form For God"

"Mathematical Equation For The Godhead"

"Hebrew Monotheism, Second Edition"

"Jesus, On God's Right Hand"

"The Name of the Deity" (The Tetragrammaton)

"Christology of the Apostolic Church Fathers"

"Christian Modalism challenged by the Greeks"

"The Apologists and the Logos Christology"

"Logos Christology"

"The Seven Spirits of God"

"Historical Numerical Superiority of the Monarchians"

"How Is God One?" Second Edition

"Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed"

"Another Comforter (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Echad vs Yachid (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"The Godhead Teaching of Ignatius of Antioch"

"Hebrews 1:8, (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Godhead Theology of the Tabernacle of Moses"

"Proper Biblical Understanding of the Word 'Person'"

"Defense of Isaiah 9:6, Answering Objections to Modalism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/defense-of-isaiah-96.html

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)


Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4




THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY
PURCHASING OUR BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY
Excerpted from the author's book entitled "Godhead Theology." Published by Seven Millennium Publications. Order your personal copy today: https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=Godhead+theology%2C+Hayes&qid=1554054212&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmrnull





Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)