ON THE SONSHIP OF GOD

Brother Beebe; - This subject, the sonship of Christ, is one of no trifling importance, in our rightly understanding the great doctrine of salvation. 

Could we be led to a clear apprehension and reception of the scripture revelation on this point, without blending anything of human wisdom therewith, it would be a precious privilege. I would here entreat my Old School brethren not to be alarmed though in presenting what appears to me clearly the testimony of scripture on this point, I should give some views not generally received by the professing world, until they have calmly examined the proofs presented, and compared them with such as may be suggested as supporting different views. 

If after such examination, they find that in this, and in the preceding communication relating to the existence of God, as three and one, I have mistaken the voice of scripture, they will do well to show the mistake. When we look into the scriptures in reference to this subject, we find the sonship of Christ therein presented to view as threefold; as the Son of man, the Son of David, and the Son of God. Each of these demand some attention, in a careful enquiry on this subject. But the examination of the two former, I intend shall be brief, and indeed of the third also, so far as the importance of the subject will justify. 1st. - What is implied in Christ's being called the Son of man? The term, son of man, we find repeatedly used in the Old Testament. Sometimes in reference to mankind at large, as denoting their vanity, vileness, mortality, &c. See Num. 23:19, Job 25:6; Ps.146:3, among other texts. It is a term particularly appropriated to Ezekiel as a prophet. It is said he is so called about eighty-nine times in his prophecy, and Christ about eighty times in the four gospels. I have however not counted for myself. Why Ezekiel is so peculiarly designated, I know not; unless it was to point him out particularly, as typical of Christ, as the Son of man; in its being his lot to prophecy about and in the time of the captivity of his people for their transgressions, and his having representively to bear some of those punishments he was directed to denounce. See chap's. 4, 5 and 12:1-7. Christ is twice, if not thrice, designated by this term in the Old Testament. Ps.80:17 & Dan.7:13. In most instances in which the term is used in the New Testament, the Lord, I think uses it Himself, of Himself. But the enquiry is, why does He so denominate Himself? It is evidently not to designate Him as literally the posterity, or as having come into Adam's place or anything of that kind. For in regard to His assumption of humanity, the scriptures are particular in guarding against the idea of His being literally the son of man. In this point of view He is revealed as the seed of the woman. Gen.3:15. Isaiah also prophesied: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Chap.7:14. And the angel in answer to the enquiry of Mary on this point describes His production thus: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." He adds, "therefore also that Holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:34,35. 

Here His humanity in distinction from being the son or offspring of man, is declared to the Son of God. But the term Son of God here I do not understand as denoting the same as His being the Begotten of the Father, &c. The term here I think corresponds with the same term as applied to Adam, (Luke 3:38,) and is designed to denote that His manhood was, as was Adam's, produced by the immediate creating power of God, without the intervention of secondary causes. 

Hence His not participating in human depravity. Perhaps Christ's being called the Son of man may be designed in part to denote Him as the heir of the world, for as Abraham's seed, He is the heir of the world. See Rom. 4:13; compared with Gal.3:16. In thus contemplating Him, we must view Him as in connection with His body the Church; and in this point of view, we shall see Him to be the only heir of creation; He in His church being the whole substance and object of creation and that for which the world stands. 

Hence all things were made for Him, as well as by Him. Col.1:16. But in a more particular sense, the Lord's portion is His people, and Jacob is the lot of His inheritance. Deut.32:9. That however which I think is more directly intended by Christ's being revealed as the Son of man, and what constitutes Him more manifestly the Antitype of Ezekiel, was His inheriting, in consequence of inheriting Jacob, their law standing, their sins, infirmities, sorrows, death, and curse. "For as much as the children," (the children God had given Him, but who were the natural heirs, the begotten sons of man,) "were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death," &c. Heb.2:14. Herein was He most astonishingly manifested as the Son of man, in being made under the law, made sin, made a man of sorrows, made a curse, &c., &c. Hence it is, that whilst He is so repeatedly called the Son of man in the Evangelists, He is no where, that I recollect, so called in any other part of the New Testament. 2nd: Christ's sonship as the Son of David is the next subject of our enquiries. We find Him repeatedly addressed as the Son of David. But Christ indirectly, though clearly, rejects the idea of being the Son of David, on one occasion, that is, of being so in the sense in which the Jews understand the Messiah would be David's son, namely: in a natural sense. Mt.22:42-45; Mark 12:35-37. 

Hence it cannot be that it was as being a natural descendant of David, that He is called the Son of David. It is true that this name, as does the name Son of man, relates to His being manifested, in the flesh, and to His being of the seed of David; that is, as the Apostle explains it, being "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Rom.1:3. But I think a due consideration of the scriptures which I will shortly refer to will satisfy the candid enquirer that the sonship of Christ as the Son of David related particularly to His exaltation in human nature as the King of Zion, of Israel; and as the Covenanted Heir of the throne of Israel, as being that seed of David more particularly intended in the covenant God established with Him as mentioned. II Sam.7:4-16; 23:5; Ps.89:19-37. It was necessary that He should be "made of the seed of David," and be born in Bethlehem, the town of David's nativity, that He might be visibly manifested as this Covenanted seed of David, as that "Righteous Branch whom the Lord should raise unto David." Jer.23:5. But that Christ's sonship as the son of David consisted in His being the King of Zion, having His dominion established in the earth, and over the nations of the earth, is evident from the fact, that all those prophesies which speak of Him as the offspring of David thus describe particularly His reign. See Ps.72; Isa.9:6,7 & chap. 11; Jer.33:15-17, &c.; as also from the manner in which He is spoken of, and addressed in the New Testament. The angel Gabriel says unto Mary concerning her son: "The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of his father David, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end." Luke 1:32,33. Thus also His entry into Jerusalem as the "King of the daughter of Zion," as foretold, Zech.9:9, as the SON OF DAVID, as He "that cometh in the name of the Lord," &c., according to Luke 19:38, as "the King that cometh," &c., and according to John 12:13, as the "King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord," &c. (Denoting the different modes of expression by which Christ as the Son of David is described - each pointing to His kingly office.) 

Hence these several terms,KING, KING OF ISRAEL, &c., are by the Holy Ghost used to denote Christ as the Son of David. Hence His being the King of Israel and being the Son of David is one and the same thing. 3rdly. We now come to a consideration of the sonship of Christ as the Son of God. Here we at once meet with a peculiar distinction of this sonship from the other two. This is a begotten sonship. He is revealed as the only begotten Son of God. The others are not begotten sonships; they relate to His humanity. He became a Son in those respects, in consequence of His union with His people; as in this respect, as it will be shown, His people are sons of God in consequence of their union with Him. Christ is then truly the Son of God. But what does His sonship in this respect consist in? In His Godhead? In His humanity? Or in something else? 

1st: That it does not consist IN HIS GODHEAD, or in His personal distinction in the Godhead, which is the doctrine of the Nicene Creed; I should think has already been clearly shown in treating on God's existence as THREE AND ONE, by the proof produced establishing the fact that Christ in the distinct relation which He sustains in the Godhead, is revealed as the one God, the Jehovah, and therefore as being absolutely self-existent and independent, in His being, as in the Father. 

2nd: The idea that His sonship, as the Son of God, consists of His being born of Mary, I should think would be given up on reflecting that His other sonships related to His humanity and were therefore not begotten sonships, whereas in this sonship He is begotten of God. But in the further prosecution of this enquiry other considerations will present themselves in opposition to this idea. In examining the New Testament on this subject, it will, I think, appear very manifest. 

1st: That Christ, as the Son of God, sustains a subordinate relation to the Father. Let us look at some of the principle texts relative to Christ's superior glory as the Son of God. In John 3:16-18, whilst Christ is declared to be God's only begotten Son, the testimony is that God gave His only begotten Son, &c., consequently the Son as such was subject to the Father. Turning to John 5:17, 30, we find the Son declaring His superior authority as such, over the SABBATH and to EXECUTE JUDGMENT, &c.; yet throughout the passage He acknowledgeth His subordination to the Father. His language is, "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do."(John 5:19) "For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself," &c. See also John 10:16 - 18. Passing to John chap.17, and we behold the Son praying to the Father to be glorified with that glory which He had with the Father before the world was, (verse 5,) thus acknowledging a dependence on the Father before the world was. 

Hence He must have been a Son before He was made flesh. In I Cor. 15:27, 28, Paul having spoken (vs.24) of Christ's delivering up the kingdom to God, even the Father, saith, "For He hath put all things under His feet. But when He saith, all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." Here again the subordination of the Son, as such, to the Father, is declared in language as plain as can be expressed. In Col.1:12-20, the greatness, the glory, and vast superiority of Christ, as God's dear Son, over every created thing in heaven, and in earth, is declared; and yet all this was by the Father's pleasure; not of His own independent will. "For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell," &c. vs.19. Again in Heb. chap. 1, the great superiority of the Son over angels is shown; and yet all this glory, is by the Father's pleasure. He appointed Him heir over all things; He said unto Him, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son." vs.5.(See Ps.2:7-11; II Sam.7:14) - "And when He bringeth His first begotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him." vs.6. Can anything be more explicit than this chapter to show the subordination of the Son to the Father, as well as to show His great superiority as the Son, over the angels? I have selected these texts in which the highest authority, exaltation, &c., of the Son as such is declared, and have shown that as thus presented to view in His exaltation, His subordination to the Father is manifested; so that it cannot with any show of candor be said, that this subordination belonged only to His humiliation, as the Son. Still I know men have said, and will say that it is only as the Mediator, the Redeemer, that He is spoken of in these and the like passages. I will only say in return, that when they can convince me, the Holy Ghost has been mistaken in the terms He authorized to be used, I may admit their right to substitute other terms, conveying other ideas, for those He has employed; but I think not before. 

Let us however examine one or two of the passages already referred to. Take I Cor.15:28. And we shall find that instead of the Holy Ghost's intimating that the Son, only in His Meditorial office, shall thus be subject to the Father, it is expressly affirmed, that the Son also Himself, shall be subject, &c., thus confirming the fact by an empathic expression, that it is of the Son Himself, the affirmation is made. And in Heb.1:5, instead of its reading, Thou art my appointed Mediator, and I will be the one God and thou shalt be the one Mediator, the affirmation is: "Thou art my Son," &c. "And I will be to Him a Father," &c. Thus the idea which I contended for in some of the preceding communications, namely: that a begotten existence, implied a derivative, and as therefore a dependent existence, is sustained by the whole revelation of Christ as the Son of God, by His subordination to the Father, therein manifested. And such subordination in a son is sanctioned by the voice of nature, of reason, and of God. God says, "Honour thy father and thy mother." &c. Ex.20:12. And Christ says, "I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me." John 8:49. Hence it is evident, that the revelation made of Christ as the only begotten Son of God, is not a revelation of the modus of His existence as Jehovah, as the Father's fellow or equal. His sonship therefore must relate to something other than to His essential existence as God. 

 But the Athanasians say that God in begetting a Son, must have begotten one in His own nature, and must therefore have begotten Him God, &c. This reasoning would be correct if God in begetting His Son was subject to the law of generation, by which man is governed. But the subjection of God to such a law, I think they would hardly contend for. The expression as used in reference to God, is evidently designed to denote the putting forth His producing power, in a way distinct from the act of creation, but peculiar to Himself, further than this we cannot say. 

But still there is in the person of the Son of God, a conformity to the law of generation, by which everything produces its like. For in His person, whilst He is the begotten Son of God, He possesses also the fullness of the Godhead, is the Jehovah equally with the Father, not as the product of the Father's begetting, but essentially so, of Himself as God. He therefore in His person possesses every quality and lineament of the Son of God, is thebrightness of God's glory and the express image of His person. Hence whilst as the Son, He with propriety saith, "My Father is greater than I," &c., (John 14:28,) with equal truth He saith, "I and my Father are ONE." John 10:30. So also, the Father could with truth, on the one hand, address Him, the Son, thus: "Thy throne O God is forever and ever," &c., and on the other hand, say to Him, "God even thy God hath anointed thee," &c. Heb.1:8,9. 

This subject being too lengthy for one communication, I will continue in another.