So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father – Heb. 5:5 NIV
Let me begin by asking you a question: Is Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God? How would you answer?
You would most likely answer by saying “yes, of course He is.” It might surprise you to note that the answer is actually yes and no. You ask, “What do I mean?”
Well, first of all, let me affirm that I believe Jesus to be the eternal God. Jesus is fully God and possesses all of God’s attributes and full and complete essence.
But where I am not so sure – and notice I said, “not so sure,” is whether Jesus has always existed as the Son to the Father for all eternity.
If Jesus always was the Son to the Father from eternity past, then we would also have to conclude that God has existed as Father to the Son.
But are these terms merely designations meant to somehow enable us to better relate to God? You see, we cannot think of the Trinity as God No. 1, God No. 2, and God No. 3. Thus one God, eternally existing in three persons and not having some personal designations for these three Persons other than number one, two and three. So, for our own sake, God may have given the titles and designations – “Father” and “Son” as concepts for us to relate to and understand better. You see, God wanted to reveal Himself to us. He wants us to know Who He is. So, in helping us to relate to Him and to understand Who He is, God chose two important designations – Father and Son to enable us to understand the nature of God better and to relate to it out of our own experiences.
Now when you read the passage above, “God said, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten you.’” The words, “today” and “begotten” seems to suggest time.
If Jesus was God’s eternal Son in that He always existed as such to the Father, then why did He say, “Today” meaning at a time in eternity past? Also, why is the term, “begotten” used as well? The term itself signifies a beginning. In the mind of God it could refer to a time when the plan of redemption was brought into existence by the members of the Godhead. And it can also refer to Jesus’ birth or conception, where the eternal second member of the Trinity began to take upon Himself human flesh.
Here is what Hebrews 1:5 state: 5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him." 7In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire." 8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Now let’s take a closer look at what is being said here. First, there are no angels to whom God has called His Son. Therefore, this tells us something interesting about Jesus. For one thing, Jesus is not an angel. If He were, He would not be called a Son, according the opening words of verse 5.
Second, notice the phrase, “You are my son, today I have become your Father.” Also, “I will be His Father and He will be My Son.”
This was a statement made to Jesus and not to any of the angels. But here is what I see. Why would God say to His Son, “I will be His Father and He will be My Son?” If this relationship of Father and Son are eternal, wouldn’t it be better stated, “I am your Father and You are my Son?” Why say, “I will be your Father, and You will be My Son,” unless this relationship for our sakes occurred in time as a way to help us to understand and relate to God?
Third, the term “firstborn” is hard to comprehend in terms of seeing it as a designation and function of eternity. The term itself it a reference to “position” or “title,” and does not refer to order of time. In other words, to all other created beings, specifically here a reference to angels, Jesus ranks number 1, He is God’s firstborn. However, why was it necessary to tell the angels this and conclude that they must worship Him?
Wouldn’t the angels who were around before man was to have known this? Unless of course, something new and different was about to occur in the Godhead that would shake the minds of angels and cause them to be perplexed and wonder what to do. Unless this something new was the incarnation of Christ who was about to take upon Himself human flesh, something a member of the Godhead had up to this point NEVER done. And with the birth of Christ came the functionality of the title “Son,” and the functionality of the title “Father” to a member of the Godhead.
Fourth, the phrase, “Thy throne O God will be forever and ever.” And again, God is speaking to Jesus, “God, your God has set you above your companions.”
The writer begins by telling us, “But about the Son, He says.” So this is the Father talking to His Son. Now if the designation of the sonship of Christ was eternal (i.e. it has no beginning but always was), then why did God say to Jesus, “Thy throne O God. . .?” Why not say, “Why throne, O Son. . .” Could it not be that before the title “Son” there was no son (as a title or designation) just God?
Again, while speaking to Jesus, God says, “God (Son), your God (Father), has set you above your companions. Why didn’t God the Father simply say, “Son, your Father, has set you above your companions?” God was mentioning an occurrence that occurred in eternity past, and the terms used were not the terms “Father” and “Son,” but “God” and “God.” Therefore, could it be that Jesus’ sonship is not eternal, although His nature as God is?
But then again, I have this issue to wrestle with. Since God wanted to reveal Himself to us, wouldn’t He reveal to us aspects of His true essence? Since God has revealed to mankind His essence – that is, He is a triune God, and also His nature and function – that is, God is Father and Son, if these things are not true of God’s eternal essence, then why would God reveal a part of Himself that is not eternally and entirely true?
In other words, if the “sonship of Christ" is not an eternal aspect of His nature, and if the “Fatherhood of God,” is not an eternal aspect of His nature, then why reveal these things to us in the first place? Why would God reveal aspects of Himself that is not true and eternal to His nature? Are the only reasons for us to know these designations and concepts have to do with redemption? So in terms of redemption, we understand God as Father and Son, and once we get to heaven, these designations would then vanish and become meaningless?
Also, what was the name of the Son before His birth? Was it Jesus? We know that is His name now since His birth, but what was it before? Was it “Son?” So if the name Jesus was a name given to the Son at His incarnation, could it not also be that the title “Son” also pertains to the incarnation and not to the eternal aspect of any member of the Godhead?
The answer: I don’t know. I’m just thinking.
