Chapter IV

Containing an examination of the divine testimony respecting the import of the term Son of God, and whether it is, or is not expressive of the highest character of our blessed Lord.

It has long been a sentiment of very general belief in the christian church, that the terms Son of God, only begotten Son of God, are expressive of that divine relation to the Father in which his highest character consists. These terms are now considered by some who are to be respected for their talents and piety, as referable to the humanity of Christ peculiarly begotten; and not as importing his most exalted nature.

In relation to this interesting and important subject, we may consider the following truths derived from the divine testimony.

1. It is in the character of the Son of God, that the Saviour is presented to a lost world, as the great object of faith, and with the belief of this truth salvation is connected.

2. It is in this character, he is an object of worship.

3. Jesus Christ during his ministry on earth never claimed a higher title.

4. The highest title ever given him in the scriptures of truth, even that of God, is given to him as the Son of God.

If these propositions are clearly supported by the word of God, can we possibly avoid the conclusion, that the terms under consideration import the highest character of our Redeemer?

1. That "the Lord from heaven," is presented to a perishing world as the great and glorious object of faith in the character of the Son of God, with the belief of which truth salvation is connected, appears from the following passages. Matt. 3:17; 17:5; John 1:34; 3:18, 36; 6:69; 9:35; 11:27; Acts 8:37; 9:20; Rom. 1:4; 1 John 4:15; etc.

2. That it is in this character he is worshipped, plainly appears from Heb. 1:6. When he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, and let all the angels of God worship him. See also John 5:23; Matt. 14:33; John 9:35, 38.

3. No passage can he found in which "the faithful witness" ever claimed a higher title. On this high claim, the charge of blasphemy by his opposers was founded. John 10:36. This claim excited their utmost rage. John 5:18.

4. That it is as the Son of God on the throne of the mediatorial kingdom, he is called God, is evident from Heb. 1:8; Ps. 45:6. But unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, etc.

The first chapter to the Hebrews illustrates this important truth. It is manifestly the design of the inspired apostle in this chapter, to set forth our adorable Redeemer in his highest dignity and most glorious character. He represents him, verse 2, as the maker of the worlds. Ver. 3, as the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person. Ver. 4, as being much better than the angels. Ver. 6, as the object of their worship. And ver. 8, as God. But it appears from verses 2 and 3 that it was in the character of Son that he made the worlds. If, then, his creating the world, if his being "the express image" of the invisible God denote his divine nature, the title of Son must denote the same. Why is he made so much better than the angels? Because he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. But what is this excellent name? It is the Son of God. This is evident from ver. 5. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, etc. But if this name is applicable only to his humanity, it must rather signify that he was made "a little lower than the angels;" and the inspired apostle appears wholly to have failed in his proof, ver. 5, which he evidently considers as conclusive.

Mr. Fuller in his essay on this subject, justly remarks, "The glory of the only begotten of the Father, and the glory of the Word, are used as convertible terms, as being the same: but the latter is allowed to denote the divine person of Christ, antecedent to his being made flesh; the same therefore must be true of the former. The Word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory; that is, the glory of the Word, the glory of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14."

John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, etc. Here the apostle exhibits to us the great love of the giver, by setting forth the excellence of the gift. But all this excellence is comprised in the phrase, "his only begotten Son." This phrase must, therefore, include the highest character of our blessed Redeemer, or it is totally inadequate for the apostle's purpose, to set forth the amazing love of God towards us in "his unspeakable gift."

Heb. 4:14. — We have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God. "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." If, then, there is any divinity in his priesthood, to give virtue to his sacrifice and intercession, that divinity is in the name of the Son of God.

So also, when he is exalted as King on the holy hill of Zion, the decree is declared, "Thou art my Son," etc. And when we are required to be reconciled to his government, we are commanded to "kiss the Son." Psalm 2:7, 12.

John 17:5. And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. The obvious truth in this passage is, that the Son possessed glory with the Father "before the world was," and, consequently, that these relations then subsisted. But if the term " Son of God" is not expressive of the Redeemer's highest character, it follows that the Son of God, so far from possessing glory with the Father before the world was, has not yet existed two thousand years!

It is remarked by the respected author before quoted, that "God is frequently said to have sent his Son into the world. John 7:18; 10:36; 1 John 4:9, 10. But this implies that he was his Son antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no less absurd than supposing that when Christ is said to have sent forth his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but in consequence of his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their mission." "Moreover, to say that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, is equal to saying, that the Son of God assumed human nature: he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation. Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his being manifested to destroy the works of the devil: but he was manifested to destroy the works of the devil by taking upon him human nature: consequently he was the Son of God antecedent to the human nature being assumed."

"It has been frequently suggested, that the ground of Christ's sonship is given us in Luke 1:35 and is no other than his miraculous conception. It is true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that such a conception was peculiar to him; but it does not follow, that by this he became the Son, or only begotten Son of God. Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It may be a reason given why Christ is called the Son of God; but not why he is so. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God. Acts 13:33. Heb. 1:4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events? This is impossible; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from his miraculous conception, it could not for that reason arise from his resurrection or exaltation: and so on the other hand, if it arose from his resurrection, or exaltation, it could not proceed from his miraculous conception. But if each be understood of his being hereby proved, acknowledged, or, as the scriptures express it, 'declared to be the Son of God with power,' all is easy and consistent."

We have, then, sufficient proof from the divine testimony, that the term Son of God is expressive of the highest character of our Saviour. The reflecting reader will discern that we have equal proof that he is, in his highest nature, "the only begotten of the Father," and must, therefore, be necessarily dependent on him for all things, agreeable to Christ's own words; "all things are delivered unto me of my Father." Mr. Fuller, although a Trinitarian, acknowledged in the conclusion of his essay on the Sonship of Christ, that "in the order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son."¹ He indeed supposed the Son to be "properly eternal," as well as the Father. But to reconcile this idea with the above concession, is to me at least, absolutely impossible.

Is this, with any of us, a subject of mere speculation? God forbid! In this name, my brethren, is concentrated all the glory of God ever viewed by mortal minds. In this name centers all our hope, and peace, and joy. It is this dear name that draws forth our souls to Jehovah in wonder, love, and praise. This is the blest name that comprises all those glorious "things the angels desire to look into." And it is in the knowledge, love and adoration of this name that the saints shall be "filled with all the fulness of God."²

Oh, may I live to reach the place,

Where he unveils his lovely face;

Where all his beauties you behold,

And sing his name to harps of gold.