Christ’s statements, in John 17:5, 24, 25 that He existed and had glory with the Father and was loved by the Father before the foundation of the world, provide “ungetoverable” evidence for His eternal pre-existence and Deity.

“And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I [ever] had with Thee before the world was.” (John 17:5) ...“Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, although the world has not known Thee, yet I have known Thee; and these have known that Thou didst send Me...” (John 17:24, 25)

Pay close attention to these verses and our argumentation about it here. Before the Time/Space universe existed, there was no such thing as time. There was only an eternal God, existing in timelessness (before and outside of time). When the first thing was created, the time/space universe began. So, if anything at all existed in that eternal period before the time/space universe was created, by necessity it had to be eternal and Divinely supernatural, because only God could exist in that “timeless” eternity. It is meaningless to talk of anything coming into existence during that timeless eternity before the creation or foundation of the world. Nothing could have come into existence during that timeless eternity without initiating the time/space universe. Anything which existed in that timeless period at all must by necessity have existed throughout the whole of that eternity. And since only God existed in that period outside of time, anything which the Bible says ever existed at all in that realm of eternity must of necessity have always existed and must therefore be God. Jesus says He existed before the creation in that realm of eternity, implying (and even demanding the conclusion) that He was always in existence throughout the whole of eternity prior to creation. Jesus says He existed with the Father in glory before the foundation of the world (before creation of the time/space universe). This clinches His eternal pre-existence, and His Deity as well. By necessity He must have existed throughout that whole eternal period if He existed in it at all. If He was always in existence with the Father, then He was always the Son and was every bit as much Deity as the Father since He shared the Father’s glory and other attributes (e.g. eternality, et al). If Jesus is God, then He always was the Son and always will be the Son. He can never change that. That is what “immutable” means. John 17:5 is perhaps the most powerful and crystal clear testimony to the Deity of Christ possible, and it comes from the lips of Jesus Himself as He prayed to His Eternal Father. It is not surprising then that some translations add the word “ever” into the text of John 17:5, since His eternal existence (and Deity) is absolutely implied and necessitated by the fact of His pre-existence in eternity before the creation of the time/space universe. To have existed in that eternal state at all is to have existed there forever, and we know from Jesus’ own words that He was there with the Father before creation.

Jesus claims to have “come from above” (Jn. 8:23), “come forth from God” (Jn. 13:3), “come forth from the Father” (Jn. 16:28), “come down from heaven” (Jn. 6:38), and that the Father is in Him and that He is in the Father. Over and over again Jesus constantly claims to have been sent by God in a much more direct sense than the angels or the prophets. He claims to have a much more intimate relationship with the Father than other holy men and angels. In fact, He alone had been in the presence of the Father (John 3:13; 6:46; 6:62). The NT statements of Jesus and about Jesus are astounding. He claims a more intimate relationship with the Father than Moses ever did, and we know how close Moses was to Yahweh (cf. Jn. 1:18 - “in the bosom of the Father”, and Jn. 17:24 - “Thou didst love me before the foundation of the world”). Truly He spoke like no other man. He did not just demand (like the prophets did) that we believe in God and put our trust in God. He demanded belief in Himself. He claimed to be the only way to God. He claimed much more than any created being has the right to claim. He could forgive sins. No one but God can forgive sins (Mt. 9:6ff; Mk. 2:7ff; Lk. 5:21ff). He said that if you had seen Him, you have seen the Father (John 14:9; cf. John 6:46 and John 1:18). No prophet or angel could do and say those things and get away with it. Only God can. Who does that make Jesus out to be? (John 5:18; 8:53; 10:33)

If Jesus was the actual offspring of God, He would have had to always pre-exist with the Father in that Father/Son relationship. If Jesus just became the Son of God for the first time at His fleshly conception and birth, there is no way we can conceive of Jesus as being God. But if Jesus pre-existed His fleshly life and lived with the Father in a Father/Son relationship, then there would be every reason to suggest that Jesus is in fact of one substance with His Father and is Deity in the most real sense possible. The Holy Spirit conception and virgin birth of Jesus go hand in hand with this idea that Jesus pre-existed and came into the world from the Father. The passages below clearly teach that there was a Father/Son relationship eternally before creation.

Some unitarians who believe in “conception Christology” deny a pre-existence of Jesus in any real sense. Others simply deny that he had a personal pre-existence of any kind, but existed merely in the thoughts of God as His eternal plan which only became a personal reality when Jesus was physically conceived in Mary. And still others allow for a personal pre-existence, but deny that the personal pre-existence was as the Son (but instead was the Logos/Word). But the following passages show that not only did He have a real personal pre-existence, but that existence was as Son with the Father before the foundation of the world (before time and space). And what’s more, that pre-existence is said to have been with glory in the same way as the glory He had with the Father after His ascension. He received back what He had before, and we know what He got back. So, if what He got back was what He had before, He must have existed with the Father as Son in a glorious state eternally before the creation of time and space. If there were ever passages which confirm such a pre-existence of Jesus with the Father, the verses below certainly do.

Look at the things Jesus says about Himself, or which the NT records others saying about Him in the passages below. Not only do these verses teach that Jesus pre-existed His life in the flesh and creation, but that He had a conscious and glorious relationship with the Father that He was to receive back after the incarnation (Jn. 17:5). These scriptures do not give the “conception Christology” viewpoint nor the Modalist position even a thread to hang on. The pre-existence of Christ as a separate conscious person (but not a separate Being) with the Father is clearly taught here.

John 1:15,30 John bore witness of Him ... “He existed before me.”

John 3:13,16,17,19 – "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man. ...For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son ...send the Son into the world ...the light is come into the world

John 3:31 – "He who comes from above is above all...

John 5:23 in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

John 5:36-38 "But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. And you do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent."

John 6:32-62 Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. ..."I am the bread of life ... For I have come down from heaven. ...The Jews therefore were grumbling ...saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?" ..."Not that any man has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. ..."I am the bread of life. ..."I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh." ...He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. ...But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?

John 8:23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, ...“I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 10:36 ...Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world

John 12:41 These things Isaiah said, because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. (Compare this with Isaiah 6 where Isaiah saw Yahweh in the temple. This presupposes the pre-existence of Christ in Isaiah’s day, and makes Jesus out to be the Yahweh that Isaiah saw.)

John 13:3 Jesus, knowing that ...He had come forth from God, and was going back to God,

John 16:28 "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father."

John 17:5 "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.

John 17:8 ...[they] truly understood that I came forth from Thee, and they believed that Thou didst send Me.

John 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world.

John 17:25 "O righteous Father, although the world has not known Thee, yet I have known Thee; and these have known that Thou didst send Me;

Rom. 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

1 Cor. 15:47 – The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.

2 Cor. 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich. [When was He rich?]

Gal. 4:4 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

Eph. 4:9,10 (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

Phil. 2:6,7 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Col. 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

1 Tim. 3:16 And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

Heb. 1:6 And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him."

1 John 4:9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

1 John 4:14 And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

Each of these passages presuppose a personal and self-conscious pre-existence of Jesus. Jesus was far more than just some kind of impersonal thought in the mind of Yahweh before creation. He was already “the Son of God” before the foundation of the world and before His life in the flesh. And He already shared His Father’s glory as Son before the world was. The Father didn’t send His thoughts. He sent His Son, a Son who already existed with the Father eternally before creation. John 1:1 says Jesus “was with God.” There are no qualifiers to identify just how long the Word was with God before He took on a fleshly form. The implication is that He existed with God forever. And in that same context, John the Baptist says: “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” (John 1:15) Notice the emphasis here. Jesus didn’t just come into existence at His fleshly birth. John the Baptist, who was born six months before Jesus says that Jesus “existed before” him. Those among the unitarians who take a “conception Christology” approach to Jesus’ begotten-ness have difficulty with this passage. This implies not only that Jesus existed before His incarnation, but that He had a higher rank beforehand and laid it aside to become a man. This, of course, agrees with the statements in Phil. 2, Heb. 1 and John 17:5.

No Trinitarian would deny that “Son” implies a begotten-ness! But the passages we have looked at so far teach that Jesus was already the Son of God before His incarnation. So, if Jesus was already the Son before His becoming flesh, when did His begetting as Son take place? This clearly refutes the “Conception Christology” view that Jesus only became “the Son of God” at his fleshly conception. He was the only begotten glorious Son with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:5,24). These passages push Jesus’ begetting (as Son) back beyond creation into the eternal realm with His Father. He was eternally the Son, so He was always begotten from the Father – an eternal begotten-ness.

And it is not just the NT which claims an eternal pre-existence for Christ. Look at what Micah says about the Messiah:

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity. (Mic. 5:2)

The Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem would not be the beginning of his existence. He had already been in existence “from the days of eternity” before his human birth. And anyone who existed in the eternal realm before creation of time is by nature eternal. And since God is the only one who is eternal, it would force us to the conclusion that Jesus is God.

Just for comparison purposes, it might be interesting to some of our readers to know precisely what the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe about Jesus’ pre-existence. Robert Bowman has done very careful research into their position and exposes it very well:

...the Witnesses’ real view of Jesus. While they admit that Jesus had a “pre-human existence,” this does not mean that the man Jesus was that same powerful spirit creature who JW’s think was God’s “junior partner” in creating the world. Rather, the Witness view is that at the moment of Jesus’ conception in the womb of Mary, the prehuman spirit called “the Word” (John 1:1) or God's “Son” (Heb. 1:2) ceased to exist, and a human person was created by Jehovah with the memories of the former spirit creature. This leads to a curious conclusion: JW's can give no reason why God needed to send his Son to earth as a man at all. Since all that was required [in their view of the atonement] was a perfect human, God could simply have created one “from scratch,” if he had wanted. (Why You Should Believe In The Trinity, by Robert M. Bowman, p. 77)

We have noted in our section that deals with the Atonement how deficient and grace-nullifying such a position by the JW’s really is. Bowman points out not only the fallacy of such a position, but the sheer absurdity of it if atonement could be obtained any other way than by God doing it. Well, let’s see if we can take a little better approach to discovering what the Bible really says about Jesus’ pre-existence before the Creation and before His incarnation.

There are several texts which teach Christ’s pre-existence and define what His nature was before the creation and His incarnation. The first one we want to deal with is Philippians 2:3-11 (emphasis mine, ees):

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:3-11)

Some who reject the Deity of Christ and the idea of a Trinity have suggested another translation and interpretation for this passage (boldfaced emphasis mine, ees):

[Philippians 2] Verse 6 says that he existed “in the form of God” (NASV, KJV – but NIV uses “nature”). This is not the same as saying that He was God, was a form of God, or was a part of God. God’s “form” or “nature” was spirit, and so was the form or nature of His Son. To say that one thing has the same form as another thing is certainly not to say that the one thing is the same thing as the other thing. In fact, two distinctly separate beings are indicated, though they share a common nature.

This verse [Phil. 2:6] is saying that Jesus did not attempt to seize what was not His, namely equality with God. By contrast, rather than reaching up, he reached down, willingly humbling himself to become a man and take on human flesh.

Verse 9 [Phil. 2:9] says that as a result of the Son humbling himself, God exalted him. It does not say he restored him to an alleged previous status as “God the Son.” To exalt is to give one a higher position than he ever had before. If Jesus had been God, he could have been restored, but not exalted. (From article written by Wanda Shirk entitled, “Philippians 2:5-11”).

I absolutely cannot agree with the idea that “two distinctly separate beings” is taught here. I see this text as being (at the worst) neutral on this issue, if not clearly affirming Christ’s sharing of Deity with the Father. The One Supreme Being can take multiple forms simultaneously. This is something which the Unitarians discount. And that is what this passage is saying. The One True God manifested Himself in flesh. There is definitely room in this text for the idea that there were two persons who shared the One Divine Existence (being, nature or form) and manifested themselves to creation in different ways. This doesn’t mean two separate gods. It simply means that the One God manifested Himself in at least two distinct personal ways. But, this issue will have to be resolved by studying other passages which deal with Christ’s pre-existence. There are two things we can agree with here. The first is that the Son definitely pre-existed creation and shared the same nature (spirit existence) as the Father. The second is that the words “a thing to be grasped” mean “seize what was not his.” The Greek word harpagmos means either “the act of seizing, or the thing seized.” It means to steal or snatch or seize something that is not one’s own. That meaning fits this text perfectly without changing its affirmation of Christ’s Deity. Here’s a fairly literal translation of the passage with that meaning of harpagmos used:

This attitude have in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who existing in the form of God did not regard that equality with God as stolen property, but emptied himself taking the form of a slave, in the likeness of men becoming, and in fashion being found as a man.

Some great texts which illustrate that this is, in fact, the correct translation and interpretation of Phil. 2 are John 17:5 - which records Jesus as praying to the Father, “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.”; 2 Cor. 8:9 (“was rich...became poor”) and John 1:15 (“has a higher rank” and “existed before me”). In all these passages, especially Phil. 2 and John 17, we see references to Jesus’ pre-existence with the Father. If there was any doubt that Phil. 2 refers to a pre-existent Son who shared in both the spirit nature and glory of the Father, these passages dispel it. This text says Christ not only existed in the same nature as the Father before creation, but shared His glory as well. Coupled with verse 24 in the same chapter (Jn. 17:24), Jesus clearly asserts that He had a glorious and loving relationship with the Father before the foundation of the world. These verses describe His relationship with the Father in very personal terms. There is no concept of an “impersonal thought or idea in the mind of God” here. And this invalidates Mrs. Shirk’s theory above that, “It does not say he restored him to an alleged previous status as “God the Son.” To exalt is to give one a higher position than he ever had before. If Jesus had been God, he could have been restored, but not exalted.” Both Phil. 2:5ff and John 17:5 show that Jesus did share the Father’s glory before creation and the incarnation, and that it was that same glory He received back from the Father after the incarnation. It was that glory that Christ emptied Himself of to become a man. And that glory was given back to Him upon His return to the heavenly realm with the Father. In addition to John 17:5 and Phil. 2:5ff, the first three chapters of Hebrews and John 1:1-18 are very powerful statements about the nature of Christ in His pre-existence with the Father. All of these passages paint the same picture of Christ’s sharing in the glory and power of the Father before creation. At the incarnation Jesus divested Himself of His glorious form (not His identity) and took on a humble form. When He returned to heaven He received back the glory He had emptied Himself of when He became flesh. He received back what was always His before creation, the difference being that now after the incarnation mankind can see why He deserves that glory and why He is worthy of our worship. The Divine glory He shared with the Father before the foundation of the world was His by right. It wasn’t stolen property. The Father had given it to Him. He had that glory with the Father forever before creation, but men just didn’t understand it as clearly as they did after the incarnation. He emptied Himself temporarily of that glorious form and for a little while was made lower than the angels (Heb. 2:7-9) to show us why God was worthy of our worship and service, and to leave a human example of exactly how to serve God and others, and more importantly to pay the price of redemption.

And in view of the fact that Yahweh God says He will not share His glory with any other BEING, we must understand Jesus as simply another PERSONAL manifestation of God (not another separate being). They are both God, or Yahweh has indeed shared His glory with another being. John 17:5 shows conclusively that Jesus pre-existed in the form of God and shared the glory of the Father before creation. Phil. 2:9-11 and Rev. 5, 21, 22 show He has that glory back again after He ascended into the heavens after His incarnation. And since He shared/shares God’s glory, He must be One with God in Divine Being as well, or God has broken His word not to share His glory with any other being.

One of the best explanations of the meaning of Phil. 2 is given by Robert Bowman:

...this may seem [at first] to support the Witnesses’ view; but in his earlier book Martin makes an important distinction that the JW’s miss. Martin relates “equality with God” in Philippians 2:6 to “equal with God” in John 5:18. On the basis of parallel expressions in the Jewish rabbinical literature, he understands both expressions to mean, not the substantial equality of nature with God that Christ as the second person of the Trinity had from eternity, but an independent “equality” by which he would have been a rival or rebellious God. Martin concludes that Christ was by right (de jure) equal to God in the sense of possessing God's nature, and could have demanded that his creatures honor him as such; but he chose to seek equality with God in fact (de facto), not by demanding it independently of his Father, but instead by humbling himself as a man and allowing the Father to exalt him.

That this line of reasoning is essentially correct may be seen from the surrounding context. The JW booklet itself draws attention to one feature of this context. In Philippians 2:3-5 Paul says that we are to follow Christ's example of humility and ‘let each esteem others better than themselves” (v. 3 Douay, as quoted in the booklet, p. 25); from this statement the booklet concludes that Christ “esteemed God as better than himself” and thus denied being in any sense equal with God (pp. 25-26). But this conclusion is the exact opposite of the point being made. Paul is not telling Christians that they are actually inferior to one another (obviously, since not every Christian can be inferior to every other Christian!), but that they ought to treat one another as if the other person was more important or better. Then he gives his supreme example: Christ was actually not inferior to God and could have claimed the right to be treated as equal to God; but he chose instead to make himself God's slave and humble himself as a man to the point of death (vv. 7-8). This fits the doctrine of the Trinity exactly, since it teaches that the three persons are equal in nature but are so perfect in love that they seek to glorify each other rather than themselves.

The other main feature of the context that indicates that Jesus was truly God is the fact that in verses 9-11 Paul says that God highly exalted Jesus and gave him the “name which is above every name,” that every one should confess that Jesus is Lord. As Ralph Martin points out, the language used here (paraphrasing the words of Jehovah in Isa. 45:23) and the use of the word Lord indicate that the “name which is above every name” is Lord, the Greek New Testament substitute for Jehovah. (Why You Should Believe In The Trinity, by Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Pages. 102-103)

For some Biblical commentary on Bowman’s assertion above about the phrase, “name above all names,” see the following: 2 Sam. 6:2; 1 Chron. 16:25; Psa. 89:7; 97:9; 108:5; Eph. 1:21 and Phil. 2:9. The picture of Jesus that emerges from a study of Phil. 2:5ff; John 17:5; John 1:1-18; John 17:5; Heb. 1 and these other passages is astounding. there is absolutely no basis for the idea that Christ was some created being. He existed forever with the Father.

The Only Begotten Son

Below is a list of all the NT passages which use the term “only begotten” (Greek, monogenes) in reference to Jesus. They show that “only begotten,” as used in reference to Jesus, is talking about the Father-Son relationship, showing that the Father is the source from which the Son is begotten. “Only begotten” in these passages refers not only to the Father-Son relationship, but to the source and nature of that relationship.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18)

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. (1 John 4:9)

The term “only begotten” is dealing with the source of Jesus’ eternal relationship to the Father, instead of identifying the beginning of His existence. There is an eternal Father/Son relationship here, not the creation of Jesus by Yahweh at the virgin birth. There are no time indicators in these passages. The implication is that Jesus always existed as Son with the Father. And it is this unique eternal Father/Son relationship which is being described by the term “only begotten.” Jesus is the only Person who has this exact same relationship to the Father (although the Spirit’s relationship with the Father is similar), and He has always had this “begotten” relationship with the Father. So there is nothing in the phrase “only begotten” that necessarily implies or demands a beginning to the “begotten” one’s existence. It is merely pointing to a relationship, and the nature and source of that relationship.

What do the terms “begotten” and “only begotten” mean? Unitarians teach that the word “begotten” as used in reference to Jesus implies that he has not always existed, since they believe there was a point in time when he was begotten and did not exist before that begetting. They assert that “begotten” necessarily implies a beginning. They justify that idea further by saying that God is never referred to as begotten, while Jesus is, therefore Jesus had a beginning point. But the reason the Father is never referred to as “begotten” is because He is the source of the Son and the Spirit. And since the Source is eternal, the Persons which proceed from and are begotten by that Source are also eternal.

Those who deny the Deity of Christ and reject the idea of a Trinity, reason as follows regarding the term “begotten”:

1. “Begotten” implies a beginning to existence – not eternal.

2. Jesus was “begotten”

\ Therefore, Jesus had a beginning to his existence and is not eternal like God.

1. God by definition cannot be “begotten.”

2. Jesus is “begotten.”

\ Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.

A lot hinges on whether “begotten” implies a beginning of existence, rather than being just a reference to having an eternal source. And it is easy to see why those who believe Jesus is God understand the term “begotten” in a relational sense rather than an existence sense. There are several issues to address regarding the word “begotten.”

1. Does the word “begotten” necessarily imply a beginning of any kind?

2. If it does, is it a beginning of existence, or just a change in one’s form or relationship?

3. If it doesn’t imply a beginning, does it imply a source or first cause instead? And if it implies a source, could that source have been eternal and the thing which flows out of the source also be eternal?

Unitarians insist that “begotten” implies a beginning of existence, and they deny the ideas of “source” or “relationship” as valid implications of the word “begotten.” But they should not really want to define begotten as a “beginning of existence,” since this would force them to consider Jesus a created being. Some of the unitarians are a little hesitant to do that.

There are other ways of understanding the word “begotten” than just the idea of beginning. Jesus could have always existed with the Father as His Son and shared glory with Him. He would always have derived His glory and His Sonship from the Father, and would always have been subordinate to the Father as Son. It is this relationship of eternal Fatherhood/Sonship and eternal subordination that the word “begotten” is referring to. The Father can be the eternal source (begetter) of Jesus the eternal Son (begotten one), and in that sense there would not be a beginning to Jesus’ existence, but there would be an eternal source of Sonship (an eternal begetter and an eternal begotten one). Jesus was always the “only begotten Son” of God. There never was a time when the begetter (the Father) and the begotten one (the Son) did not exist. There is no other that was begotten in that sense and who shared eternal glory and an eternal relationship with the Father as Son like Jesus did (cf. John 17:5). It is like a spring of water flowing from its source. The source (begetter) of the Son was the Father. And because the source is eternal there is no reason to believe that the Son (the thing that comes from the source) ever had a beginning. The Source and the One who comes from Him are both eternal, yet it is still proper to call the One that flows from the Source “begotten,” since He does derive His glory and substance from the Father. He is not a different spring. Everything Jesus is comes from the Source above. He is of the same substance as the Father. The Son eternally flowed from the eternal Source (the Father). So, “begotten” refers to the eternal relationship Jesus had with the Father as Son, not to a beginning point in time. Jesus is eternally begotten.

The “Sun/Light” and “Spring/Water” ideas are not just cleverly devised illustrations invented by the Trinitarians to make the Trinity sound plausible. Jesus actually claims to be the Light from the Father (Jn. 1:9; 3:19; 12:46; 1 Tim. 6:16; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 Jn. 1:5), and that He is the Spring of Living Water that comes from His Father the Source (Jn. 4:10-14; 7:38; Rev. 7:17; 21:6; 22:1-2; 22:17). Jesus is called the Prince and the Son of God (Is. 9:6; Dan. 8:25; 9:25; Acts 3:15; 5:31). If Yahweh is the King of the universe, and Jesus is His Son the Prince, can we think of the Prince being anything but Divine like His Father the King? In kingdoms it was very appropriate to give the same kind of worship and glory and honor and obedience to the prince that they gave to his father the king. The prince was the one designated to be the next ruler. While the King was still alive he would always have authority to overrule the prince, so the prince was subordinate in that sense. In all other ways the prince ruled just like his father the King. It is these terms (king and prince) as used in reference to Yahweh and Jesus that reveal a lot about Jesus’ nature, identity and relationship with God. These are Biblical definitions of Jesus’ nature, not Trinitarian innovations.

We are talking about Jesus being “eternally begotten.” I have to admit this was a tough concept for me to understand at first until I saw how it was developed in Scripture, because "eternal" and "begotten" seem to be opposites. “Begotten” seems to imply a beginning, while “eternal” implies none. But the word “begotten” is used more than one way, and the definition both Catholic and Reformed theologians give it is in terms of relationship. "Eternally begotten" simply means that Jesus always existed (eternal), and always was the Son in relation to the Father. There never was a time when the Son was anything other than the real personal Son of the eternal unbegotten Father. There are two Biblical illustrations of this idea which Jesus uses of Himself to convey this idea: Light and Water. Jesus is the Living Water which comes from the Eternal Spring. Are the Spring (from which He comes) and the Water (begotten from it) of the same substance? If the Spring is eternal, the water that comes from it is also eternal. Jesus is the Light of the World. The Sun gives off Heat and Light. Even though we can label the heat and light as separate manifestations, they are still of one substance with the Sun itself. They proceed from the Sun and are just as eternal as the Sun is. If the Sun is eternal, then the heat and light that come from it are also eternal. If there always was a Father, then there always was a Son. That was an eternal relationship. The Son is a personal manifestation of the Father. The Father is the Source from which the Son and the Spirit proceed. Since the source has always been there, the Son and Spirit have always been proceeding from that Source. This idea of "procession from" is what "begotten" is all about. The relationship between the Father and the Son is one of begottenness. This relationship does not imply nor necessitate a "beginning" to the Son's existence. It only explains how the Son is related to the Father. The Son is subordinate to the Father because the Son depends on the Father as His Source (like light and water depend on their sources). The Son has always been with the Father and was always begotten from the Father. This is an "eternal begottenness." John 17:5, 24 are very enlightening on this concept. The Son shared the Father's glory and love in eternity before creation. There was a "personal" relationship there, not some impersonal "Logos" idea (Modalism).

There never was a time when the Son did not exist, so when the Bible talks about Jesus being “begotten” it is referring to the idea that in relation to the Father Jesus was “always begotten.” This “eternally begotten” idea is what most of the NT references to Jesus’ “begotten-ness” are talking about. “Begotten” in reference to Christ does not imply a starting point in His existence. It is simply referring to the idea that Jesus derives His existence from the Father, and that existence with the Father has always been, so Jesus has always been the only begotten Son of the Father. Jesus is eternally begotten from the Father.

Christ’s “begotten-ness” is not a reference to His being created, nor His birth into humanity, but refers to His eternally dependent and subordinate relationship to the Father before, during and after His incarnation. Begotten is not necessarily talking about a beginning of existence, but the source of a relationship or a change in that relationship. Jesus always existed, so He was always the Son, and therefore was always the only begotten Son. This makes Jesus “eternally begotten.” There never was a time when the Father and Son did not exist. The Son was always there with the Father. He was always the only begotten Son of the Father. There was always a Father/Son relationship. So, there never was a time in which Jesus was not the “begotten” Son of God. Heb. 13:7 implies this, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.” But there was a time in which He was made a little lower than the angels. And then He received back His glory as Son again. He was still Son during the incarnation, but it was a time when He was not perceived or honored as Son by His own people. But after He finished His work on earth, He ascended and received back His glory as the Only Begotten Son. The incarnation was a phase in Jesus’ Sonship when His glory as the Son of God was temporarily laid aside or emptied in order to take it back up again after the resurrection and ascension. So “begotten” does not imply Jesus had a starting point in His existence at all. It simply refers to where He derives His glorious Sonship from and what His relationship is to the Father, and what role he is playing in regard to redemption. It means he was subordinate to and directly related to the Father and co-existed with the Father. As long as there was a Father, there was also a Son. And the Spirit existed co-eternally with them. These three persons revealed and explained the One Divine Being to us, and played various roles in the consummation of redemption.

There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'" For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:9-18)

In John 1:18, Jesus is referred to as “the only begotten God.” Unfortunately there is a textual variation here which leaves the correct translation and interpretation of this passage somewhat in dispute. The other variant reading is, “the only begotten Son.” And, of course, both the Trinitarians and the Unitarians claim the passage as evidence for their views no matter which of the textual readings is the correct one. The NASV translates it, “the only begotten God.” Of the two, this is the variant which causes the most controversy. If it is the correct reading, the Unitarians only have a point in their favor if they can prove that the word “begotten” here implies a beginning to Christ’s existence as a person. If the word “begotten” instead is only referring to the source of Jesus’ Deity and to His subordinate position in the Godhead, then the Unitarians have no leg to stand on. God as BEING has no beginning, nor is He begotten (derived from or subordinate to any other being or person). Jesus as a person is derived from and subordinate to the Father, the same way light and heat are derived from and dependent upon the sun for their existence. And that existence of heat and light is just as eternal as the sun itself. And the light and heat are every bit as much a part of the sun as the sun itself. In the same way Jesus and the Holy Spirit are derived from and dependent upon the Father for their existence. They are of the same nature as the one true God and have existed and been proceeding forth from the Father as long as the Father Himself has been in existence (eternally).

Here is another passage (Heb. 7:3) which not only implies, but demands the conclusion that Christ was eternal and had no beginning (nor an end):

Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually. (Heb. 7:3)

We could dispute whether this implies that Melchizedek was a manifestation or theophany of the Son of God, or whether he was just “made like the Son of God,” but one thing here is not disputable: the Son of God has “neither beginning of days nor end of life” and “abides...perpetually,” since Melchizedek is “made like” Him. The whole argument would fall apart without this assumption. So, the case for Jesus’ eternal begotten-ness from the Father seems unshakable. However, there is another passage which unitarians use to attempt to prove that “begotten” a beginning. That passage is Psalm 2:7 and its three NT quotes. Let’s examine their argument.

This phrase comes from Psalm 2:7 and is quoted three times in the NT (Acts 13:33, Heb. 1:5; 5:5). Unitarians argue that the word “today” in these passages implies Jesus had a beginning point to His existence, since it says He was begotten “today.” So if Jesus had a beginning, He could not be eternal, and therefore is not God. So, “today” in these texts is a very important word to study. Here are the passages which use it:

"I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee. (Ps. 2:7)

...that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, “Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee.” (Acts 13:33)

For to which of the angels did He ever say, “Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.” And again, “I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me.” (Heb. 1:5)

So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.” (Heb. 5:5)

Psalm 2 is a “coronation hymn” by David (cf. Acts 4:25). It has been considered one of the most Messianic of all the Psalms by both Jews and Christians. David speaks figuratively about his adopted relationship to God as his Father, and quotes what Yahweh said to him on his coronation day, “Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.” At his coronation, David is adopted by God as a prince/son to represent Him. This imagery is deliberate in order to convey the subordinate status of the Messianic king to Yahweh who is the real and absolute King. Since it is obviously Messianic (i.e. the NT quotes it in reference to Jesus), the question becomes: On what day, in reference to Jesus’ existence, was He coronated as Son of Yahweh? The above NT quotes answer this question pretty well.

These three passages point to the ascension as the “today” when Jesus was installed as God’s Prince Son on David’s throne. It was His coronation day. He received back the glory and crown rights He laid aside during the incarnation. Jesus proved He was God’s Son, not only by nature, but by right. Acts 13:33 claims that the resurrection of Jesus proved that God had fulfilled His promise to raise up a son of David to rule over Israel. Jesus’ resurrection showed that He was God’s anointed, and that He was worthy of the honor, and the coronation would occur shortly afterwards at His ascension. Heb. 1:5 speaks of a time after Jesus “had made purification of sins” and “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (at the ascension). And Heb. 5:5 points directly to the time when Jesus ascended to begin His High Priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. So these three NT quotes of Psa. 2:7 seem to place Jesus’ coronation as God’s real Son on David’s throne at the ascension.

In what sense is Jesus begotten as “Son” at the ascension if He was already the Son of God? Because the Savior was both God and man, there was a two-fold begetting. As the eternal Son of God He was already Prince of Heaven by nature. As a man and the son of David, He also had to be approved by Yahweh and adopted as worthy to reign over Israel. Psalm 2:7 refers not to a beginning of Christ’s eternal Divine Sonship and rulership in Heaven, but to His appointment by the Father to reign over Israel as Prince/Son representing God and in fulfillment of the promises to David. It was the Davidic promises that had to be fulfilled. The eternal Son had to become the fleshly son of David and be adopted as Son like David did, so that He would be both Divine Son by nature and adopted Son by right. He could not be the Jewish King unless He was son of David also. These three NT quotes of Psa. 2:7 are simply affirming Jesus’ coronation as King of Israel on David’s throne. No mere son of David (adopted as God’s son) could ever fulfill the redemptive promises. Only the real Divine Son could ever accomplish redemption. The Davidic rulers only typified the One who would be a real (not just adopted) Son. But only One who was both human and Divine could ultimately do what was necessary. Jesus was both the actual Son of God and the adopted son. The OT practice of God’s adopting the descendants of David as “Sons” simply pointed typologically toward the time when the real Son of God would redeem and rule over Israel. Jesus’ coronation proved that those Davidic promises and redemptive prophecies had now been fulfilled in Him. By “begetting” Jesus at the heavenly ascension God was making it clear who His real (not just typologically adopted) “Son” is. The earthly rulers were only typical. The man who rules from heaven must be God’s real Son.

And the word “today” in these passages is not a reference to the beginning of Jesus’ existence nor even the beginning of His relationship to the Father as real Son, but to His coronation and adoption as a physical descendant of David to represent Yahweh as ruler over Israel. When did God anoint Jesus? Just like David was anointed for quite a while before he actually began to rule, so Jesus had a period of dishonor and suffering before He actually began to rule, even though Jesus was already anointed before that (at His baptism when the Spirit descended upon Him). There was a beginning to that adopted sonship (at the ascension), but not to His Divine Sonship that He already (and always) had before creation. The passages we looked at above in regard to Jesus’ pre-existence show that He was already the real Son of God long before creation, incarnation and the ascension. So this sonship that begins on the “today” of these passages has to refer to His Davidic sonship. David and his sons were adopted, because they were typologically representing the real Son of God who would actually accomplish what they were only typifying. But the true One would have to fit into the Davidic line and fulfill the types from inside that family tree. So we have two different aspects of Jesus’ Sonship being dealt with in scripture. Psalms 2:7 deals with the Davidic adopted sonship only. This was fulfilled at the ascension. The “today” was the official adoption and coronation at the ascension. This adoption merely confirmed and put Yahweh’s stamp of approval on what was already the case long before creation. Jesus was the eternal Son of God and entered the realm of flesh to demonstrate that He was in fact worthy of that status. He was the real Son of God that the adopted sons of David only typified. And this glory and rulership that Jesus was given back at His coronation wasn’t stolen property. The Father had broken silence on several occasions to announce that Jesus was His “beloved Son.” Jesus was Son both by nature (eternally) and by right (through His suffering in the flesh He was anointed, and then raised and ascended to be adopted and crowned/coronated with glory and honor). For Jesus the son of David, the “today” was his coronation as king over David’s throne, but for Christ, the Son of God, it was the restoration of His Glory with the Father as the eternal and real Son of God that was only typified by the Davidic rulers.

The word “begotten” is not inherently dealing with or referring to a beginning of one’s existence. If it did, David would not have begun to exist until his coronation day, since he was said to have been “begotten” by God on his coronation day. On the day of his ascension to the throne over Israel, David was adopted as God’s representative to rule over Israel, as a type of the real Son of God. But David existed before this “begetting.” And Jesus was referred to as “begotten” before His ascension. So, “begotten” does not imply a beginning of existence in Psalm 2:7, but rather a change in relationship or role. Jesus’ relationship with the Father went through three phases: (1) an eternal pre-existence before creation and throughout Israel’s history sharing glory with the Father, (2) the incarnation where He laid that glory aside temporarily, and (3) the return to sharing the glory of the Father in Heaven. Psalm 2:7 is simply referring to the phase-change from the incarnate form back to the glorious Divine form, and it occurred on the “today” when Jesus ascended to the Heavenly Throne. Dan. 7:13,14 and the NT passages which deal with the role of Christ after the ascension show this “begetting” phase change.

So, it is obvious that there are at least two different ways in which “begotten” is used in reference to Jesus. One is the sense of eternally begotten (referring to the source of one’s existence and the nature of that relationship), and the other is the sense in which it is used here in Psalm 2:7 (a change in relationship or role). I say it is obvious, because Jesus was called “the only begotten Son” before His ascension day. He was already begotten in some sense before His coronation. And that sense was unique, because He was the “only” one “begotten” in that sense. So if He is “begotten” at some other time, it must be in some other sense than the sense in which He was already the only begotten Son of God. And so it is. Not only is Christ the eternal begotten Divine Son of God, but the man Jesus is also the son of David, and as such has the right to sit on the throne at the right hand of God. At His ascension His existence. It was a change of roles. The suffering servant role was over and his glorious reign with the Father began again. The former glory He had with the Father before creation was restored. He ruled not just because He was God’s real Son by nature, but also because He had shown that He had the right to do so by His sufferings in the flesh.

In Psalm 2:7 and its three NT quotes, we see that Jesus was begotten in another sense besides His eternal begotten-ness as the Son of God. This additional “begotten-ness” is connected directly with the fact that Jesus was also “the son of David.” And it is showing that Jesus is not only the Son of God by nature, but Son of God by right. One can be by nature the real son of someone and still be dispossessed of his inheritance. Just because we are sons by nature does not mean we have the right to possess our father’s inheritance. We must not only be sons, but must possess the right to inherit. That right is given by God. Jesus was Son both by nature and by right.

There is perhaps an additional way to interpret Psalm 2:7, besides the concept that it refers to Jesus as the son of David being coronated to sit on David’s throne. His glory as the eternal Son of God was the “form” He emptied Himself of in order to take the lowly form of man (Phil. 2:5ff). It was the “glory” He laid aside in order to “become flesh” (John 17:5, 24; John 1:14,18). He was still the Son of God even during His incarnation, but was not honored as the Son by the Jewish nation. His incarnation showed why He was indeed worthy of the glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:5). And it showed why the Father would give that glory back to Him after the incarnation. The “today” passages, then, would not be referring to a beginning of existence, but a receiving back of the glory He had before the creation at His ascension. I tend to believe it is better interpreted as we did above in reference to the humanity of Jesus and His Davidic descendancy being confirmed by His coronation to sit on the throne of David.

Since Psalm 2:7 and its three NT quotes are the only allusions to a “time” factor in reference to Jesus’ “begotten-ness,” and since that “time” of being begotten is not talking about a beginning to His existence but a restoration of His glory back with the Father, our belief in the eternal begotten-ness of Jesus stands secure. “Begotten” doesn’t refer to a beginning of existence, but to a relationship with the Father and to a role in redemption as the Son of God. There was no beginning to that existence, just a change of phases in the relationship. And Jesus as Son always proceeded forth from out of the Father the same way eternal Light proceeds from an eternal Sun source. Jesus is the eternally begotten (proceeding) Son from the eternal Father. His coronation at the ascension proved that He was worthy of that honor and glory. It wasn’t stolen property. Praise God for His amazing work of grace through His eternal Son.

Let’s see what the following two passages imply about the relationship between Jesus and God.

Then behold, the word of Yahweh came to [Abraham], saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir." (Gen. 15:4)

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God, and was going back to God... (John 13:3)

The first verse is especially significant in connection with Abraham. God tells him that the chosen descendant will not be a stranger, but will be one who will “come forth from your own body.” Isaac was a type of Christ, especially in the Mount Moriah incident when Abraham was tested to see if he was willing to sacrifice his only begotten son. His name meant “laughter,” and the One who fulfilled Isaac’s typology indeed made laughter for His real Father. When Jesus paid the price to set Satan’s captives free, there was a big smile on the Father’s face (and a deep frown on Satan’s). Isaac wasn’t an only begotten son in some obscure sense. He was the direct offspring of Abraham. He came forth from Abraham’s “own body.” What does that imply about the relationship between God and His “only begotten son” who would also be sacrificed on Mt. Moriah? Did Jesus “come forth from [God’s] own body?” (Luke 1:35) Of the same substance? Or, was Jesus the “only begotten son of God” in some lesser and indirect sense like we are “sons of God”? What would that do to the typology involved in the Abraham-Isaac case? And what does it imply about the Holy Spirit and Mary’s conception of Jesus? If Jesus is not the direct offspring of God, then WHO IS THE REAL FATHER of Jesus? But if God is the real Father of Jesus, what does that make Jesus out to be? Just a man? Or an angel? Or something much more wonderfully imponderable? (The Only Begotten Son of God – the only time God has taken human form and lived among us.)

Let’s look at some passages in the Gospels which use the phrases, “My Father” or “the Father,” and see what they have to say about the relationship between the Father and the Son. How does Jesus define His relationship with the Father? (emphasis mine, ees)

Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (John 5:19-23)

even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. ...For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. (John 10:15, 17)

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves. (John 14:8-11)

"I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father." (John 16:28)

These are extremely powerful passages. There is more to the relationship between the Father and the Son than just a Creator/creature relationship. No created being, not even a unique, one-of-a-kind demi-god has the right to make the claims or talk and act the way Jesus did. The above passages paint a very clear picture of Jesus’ direct relationship to the Father. He was the real offspring of God. He came forth from the Father. The Father was in Him and He was in the Father. I find these passages full of awe. My mind prostrates itself in sheer wonder, amazement and astonishment that God would love us enough to become a man and live among us, and that He loved any of us enough to die for us and save us. God is worthy to be worshipped without doing or saying anything, but His manifestation in and through Jesus shows us why He is utterly and absolutely WORTHY of all praise and glory and honor forever. Jesus was God incarnate. What worship that idea provokes! But if Jesus is only a created being, would we be as awestruck?

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” (2 Cor. 5:19) Just like our human sons have the same essence and substance and nature as their human fathers, so also the “Holy Offspring” (Lk. 1:35) of God shares in the same essence, substance and nature as His Divine Father. “All the fullness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form.” (Col. 2:9) The Father was IN him and He was in the Father. (John 10:38; 14:10) “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father,” Jesus said. (John 14:9) Jesus was the one and only unique Offspring (Son) of God. It happened at the virgin birth when the Father (who can be more than one place at the same time) came to be manifested in human flesh. Sure God can be in more than one place at a time. That’s what omnipresence means! And that’s how God can manifest Himself as more than one person in more than one place at the same time!

The subordination of Christ to the Father seems to be an argument against the Deity of Christ, and that’s the way the unitarians try to use it. They try to trap Trinitarians into affirming that Jesus is equal to the Father in every way (both in nature/being as well as in person/role). Once they get us to say that, they whip out all the passages which show the subordination of the Son to the Father before, during and after the incarnation. But, the subordination of the Son to the Father is not an argument against Christ’s Deity at all, but rather a strong argument in harmony with His Deity and in support of the Trinity. In fact, if the three persons were equal in both nature and role, then what we would have is not a Tri-Unity but a Tri-Theism (three equal gods). Trinitarians believe in the subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father in regard to their personal roles in redemptive history. But in nature, substance and being they are both equal with the Father. Among the Three Persons there is equality in sharing the One Divine Substance or Nature, but subordination of the other two personal manifestations of God’s presence to the One from whom they both draw their purpose or role from. It’s just like heat and light are both dependent on the Sun. They are one in substance with the Sun, but are subordinate to and dependent upon the Sun as their source. Jesus and the Spirit are also subordinate to and dependent upon the Father, while at the same time being of the same substance and nature as the Father. Since the purpose of God was eternal and in God’s mind before the foundation of the world, it is not inconceivable that the other Two Persons who would play a vital role in the accomplishment of that purpose were also eternally in existence with the Father ready to carry it out. So, we are talking about equality in essence/substance/nature/being, but subordinate in their personal roles to the purposes of the One. One being, three persons. There is only one eternal, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being. But more than one person can play a role in communicating and consummating the purposes of that One Divine Eternal Existence as long as they play roles that are subordinate to His purposes.

Both Trinitarians and unitarians agree that the subordination of Christ would be absolutely necessary during the human life of Jesus. It is before and after the human life of Christ that the subordination becomes an issue. Robert Bowman shows very well that the subordination of certain persons within the Trinity is an argument for the Trinity instead of an argument against it, and that the JW’s are the ones who are inconsistent on this issue:

... First, the JW’s argument assumes that Jesus is no longer a man. The Witnesses believe that the physical body of Jesus was never raised to life, but was “raised” (“recreated” might be more accurate) as a mere spirit. If Jesus' body was raised from the dead, though, as Trinitarians believe, then as a man Jesus would still naturally be in some sense required to submit to the Father as his God. (Why You Should Believe In The Trinity, by Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Page 79)

Here are some passages which teach the subordination of Christ not only during the incarnation, but also before and after. In John 17:5 Jesus prays to the Father and asked to receive back the glory He had with the Father before the world was. In view of the passages where Yahweh says He will not give His glory to another being, the conclusion seems inescapable that Jesus shared eternal glory with the Father and therefore must share the same eternal existence with Him. The Father sent Him. The Son came in submission to the eternal purpose of the Father. There was subordination before the incarnation as well as during it. After His ascension and glorification the Son is subordinate as well – 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:24-28; (cf. John 10:29 and John 14:28 together).; and Rev. 21, 22 (where Jesus is seated at the right hand as the Son of the One who sits on the throne – and the Son of the King is subordinate to the King). Another passage which enforces the idea that Jesus must be eternally subordinate is Heb. 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.” Only subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father throughout all eternity would be a Tri-Unity. And that is what true Trinitarians believe. So, the unitarians are only setting up a strawman argument by trying to get Trinitarians to affirm total equality in both nature and personal relationship. Subordination is Trinitarian turf in the debate, and it not only suggests the possibility that the Son and Spirit are Deity, but actually demands their Deity since no one can be in even that close of a relationship with the Father without being Deity (i.e. “...to which of the angels did He ever say...” Heb. 1:5).

on to Chapter 3 . . .

Who Do You Say I Am? - Table of Contents

Articles
IPA Home