Greg Deuble:
www.thebiblejesus.org
No doubt many will be surprised, even shocked perhaps, that the heading of this article could even hint that the titles “Elohim the Son” and “The Son of Elohim” are not one and the same. For them it is not one or the other. Both designations are equivalent and therefore equally true. For most believers calling Yeshua “the Son of Elohim”, really means Yeshua is “Elohim the Son”. Is this so and does it really matter anyway?
Some years ago I had the very great privilege of meeting and spending some time with a Professor Colin Brown. Colin Brown was the distinguished Professor of Systematic theology at Fuller Seminary and was also the general editor of the prestigious New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Speaking about the identity of Yeshua as the Son of Elohim, D r Brown surprisingly admits,
“The crux of the matter is how we understand the term ‘Son of Elohim’... The title Son of Elohim is not in itself a designation of personal deity or an expression of metaphysical distinctions within the Godhead. Indeed, to be a ‘Son of Elohim’ one has to be a being who is not Elohim! It is a designation for a creature indicating a special relationship with Elohim. In particular, it denotes Elohim’s representative, Elohim’s vice-regent. It is a designation of kingship, identifying the king as Elohim’s Son.” (1).
It will come as a shock to many sincere believers to learn that many of their brightest and most ‘orthodox’ scholars align with this sentiment of Dr Colin Brown’s, that “Indeed, to be a ‘Son of Elohim’ one has to be a being who is not Elohim!”
One of the foremost Anglican scholars of this generation, Bishop N.T. Wright, cautions against reading our post Nicene creeds back into the Biblical revelation of Yeshua:
“At a popular level ... the phrase ‘son of Elohim’ is read as if the disciples, and indeed Caiaphas at the trial, understood it in the fully Nicene sense ... We must stress that in the first century the regular Jewish meaning of this title [‘son of Elohim’] had nothing to do with an incipient trinitarianism; it referred to the king as Israel’s representative. Israel was the son of YHWH: the king who would come to take her destiny on himself would share this title.” (2)
We will shortly demonstrate the truth of Wright’s claim that in the Bible the description ‘the Son of Elohim’ “had nothing to do with an incipient trinitarianism”, but rather “referred to the king as Israel’s representative.” In other words, the title is not a description of one who is Elohim Himself! Ah la Dr Brown.
James D.G. Dunn has been a NT scholar in the vanguard of Christological studies. In his landmark book Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation Dunn writes that in our understanding of the identity of Yeshua we must start with the title ‘the Son of Elohim’, since such language was always prominent in early Christian talk of Yeshua, and indeed was the central and decisive Christological title. He asks, “So what did the first Christians (and Yeshua himself?) mean when they spoke of Yeshua as Elohim’s Son, or Son of Elohim, or Son of the Father?”
Dunn in company with Brown and Wright then advises us to shut out the voices of the early church Fathers, the Councils and the dogmaticians down the centuries in case they drown out, and indeed say something different to, the NT witness itself. (3)
Dunn goes on to write this amazing conclusion that,
“Perhaps the most striking of all is the surprising absence within the range of materials surveyed (he means both Biblical and intertestamental sources such as the Apochrypha and Dead Sea scrolls) of the idea of a son of Elohim or divine individual who [literally] descends from heaven to earth to redeem men ...” (p. 18).
Karl-Josef Kuschel has produced a classic study on the question of whether the Son of Elohim literally existed in heaven before his appearance on earth. His conclusion also is,
“The title ‘Son of Elohim’ used for Yeshua has its origin in the Israelite royal ideology”... [then he quotes the Tubingen OT scholar Herbert Haag with approval] saying, ‘In the Old Testament and early Judaism ‘son of Elohim’ signifies creatureliness, election and intimacy’ and is not intended to signify divinity.” (4)
Again, shades of Dr Colin Brown, Wright, and Dunn where to be a Son of Elohim one has to be a being who is not Elohim!
Another expresses his concerns this way,
“How can Yeshua be the Son of Elohim and also be called ‘Elohim’ at the same time? I was troubled by the word Son. It suggests he was born and had a beginning. Since Elohim is eternal and does not have a beginning or end, how could Yeshua be Elohim?” (5)
This sample of serious scholarship is not a roster of light-weights and could be multiplied many times over. They are not theological cowboys, lone rangers or quacks. They are from the fold of evangelical and respected “orthodoxy”. To ignore such scholarly advice is to rush down a road to possible deception in our understanding of Yeshua, the Son of Elohim.
Jewish Background to ‘Son of Elohim’.
The Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments outlines the Jewish background for the term, ‘Son of Elohim’. Within Jewish culture the term was applied to Israel itself (Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1); to leading individuals in the nation (Deut. 14:1; Is. 1:2; 43:6; Jer. 3:22; 31:9); to angels and other heavenly beings (Gen. 6: 2-4; Deut. 32:8; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6); to the king (2 Sam. 7:14; I Chron. 17:13; 22:10; 28:6); and to the Messiah (the latter from intertestamental literature) ...
“It did not, however, denote a divine figure descending from heaven as the bearer of salvation, except insofar as angels were messengers or agents of Elohim ... On the contrary, when the status “son of Elohim” was conferred on someone it was a recognition of a particular achievement. We therefore need to allow the literature itself to define the nature and scope of the term’s meaning for early Christians.” (6)
What? Do our current pastors and ministers not read their own scholars and consider? They are fortunate their congregations sit there without investigating this large body of evidence to see if these things are so. Evidently the good example of those “noble-minded” Bereans who daily “examined” what Paul was saying to see if he was preaching to them in accordance with the Scriptures, means little to modern believers (Acts 17:11). Here is serious cause for reflection.
Non-Bible Descriptions.
If to be called ‘Son of Elohim’ means one is not Elohim, we are immediately in conflict with official trinitarianism. Trinitarianism stands or falls on whether Yeshua is ‘Elohim the Son’, in eternal union with Elohim the Father, and ‘Elohim the Spirit’. The Nicene doctrine of “the eternal generation” of the Son is its cornerstone.
So, how does trinitarianism circumnavigate its way around the solid rock that in the Bible, Yeshua is only spoken of as being ‘the Son of Elohim’, and not once called ‘Elohim the Son’? Easy really. Just invent new non-Bible descriptions and expressions! It’s the old smoke-and-mirrors trick. Just say Yeshua is the “eternally begotten Son” and put it in a creed to recite. Just say Yeshua is “Elohim the Son” often enough and folk will swallow it.
The persistent practice of needing to invent non-Bible terms to justify a belief ought to sound alarm bells in any honest Bible reader’s mind. After all, Elohim has chosen to speak to us in a book of inspired words. Our responsibility is to accept His authority and listen intelligently. We are not at liberty to pick and choose or change His revelation, which Yeshua said will not pass away until it’s all been fulfilled.
The stubborn fact is, in the Bible there is no such person as an “eternally begotten Son”. In the Bible the Son of Elohim was begotten in time, not in eternity, as I will now prove. Sufficient for the time being to say, if there is no such person as the “eternally begotten Son” the doctrine of the Trinity is a dead duck in the water!
The Son of Elohim Begotten “Today”.
In the Bible the ‘Son of Elohim’ does not have a beginning way back in a timeless eternity. The Son is “begotten” in time, at a certain point in history, which is called “today”. In one Messianic Psalm Elohim prophetically decrees to his [still future!] Son,
“You are My Son; Today I have begotten you” (Ps. 2:7).
My dictionary defines the word “beget” as, 1. To procreate or generate (used chiefly of the male parent). 2. To cause, produce as an effect. (7) Thus, to be begotten is to have an origin, a beginning, to be brought into being, to be generated, to come into existence. This is the Bible definition also, as I will show. In both the English language and in Bible definition, to “beget” denotes a before and after, a beginning point.
Psalm 2 says the Son is begotten “today”, and a day is not a timeless eternity! “Today” is a moment in time, a point in history. What nonsense then to speak of someone who is eternally coming into being! What quackery to describe someone as being “eternally generated”, that is, having a beginning-less beginning! This is to invent our own private meanings to words so as to justify a philosophical speculation.
When the Church declares Yeshua to be the “eternally generated Son” it produces the oxymoron of a continual existence that never comes into existence! Let’s see what utter baloney this is.
Gabriel Explains Who the Son of Elohim is.
Listen to how Gabriel describes the begetting of the Son of Elohim,
“And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy thing (child) begotten shall be called the Son of Elohim” (Lk. 1:35 NASB margin and literal Greek translation.)
We do well to align our confession of who the Son of Elohim is with that of Gabriel’s. After all, Gabriel “was sent from Elohim” (Lk. 1: 26) and declared he “stands in the Presence of Elohim” (Lk. 1:19). Not to listen to Gabriel caused one man to become mute on the spot (Lk. 1:20)! So, listen up, good people! Gabriel should know who the Son of Elohim is. Let’s ask him shall we? So Gabriel, who is the Son of Elohim?
Answer: First, he is the son of Mary, but he has no human father, yet he is a human being.
Second, he is “begotten” by Elohim’s direct and miraculous Presence coming upon Mary. Here Gabriel is precise --- “for that reason” --- the holy child will be the Son of Elohim. Yeshua’ Sonship derives because he is miraculously begotten by Elohim’s holy Spirit in Mary. Gabriel thus declares the Son of Elohim is begotten, begins to exist, is procreated, is generated, is caused to exist, is brought into being, (as per the prophetic word), “today” in Mary! Which is to say, Yeshua’ sonship begins in real “today” time and not ethereal eternity.
Putting this in very plain language Gabriel wants us to know that by definition the Son of Elohim is a human person supernaturally generated by Elohim in Mary. Negatively, this means the Son of Elohim did not personally pre-exist his own beginning at that point in history. After all, nobody --- not even Elohim Himself --- can pre-exist their own existence! To already be in existence and then begin to exist are mutually exclusive ideas. As I say, not even Elohim could do this!
As Professor Anthony Buzzard pithily remarks, “A begotten Son is ruled out once the Son is made to predate his begetting.”
And Eric Chang asks,
“In Luke the explanation was given that the title ‘Son of Elohim’ [Lk. 1:35] was given him because of his virgin birth. That this title was not meant to convey the idea of divinity or deity seems clear from the fact that Adam is also called ‘son of Elohim’ just two chapters later [Lk. 3:38]. Also in consequence of that birth Yeshua can be called ‘the only begotten’ because no one was ever begotten in this way. When Scripture provides perfectly clear and intelligible explanations, why do we read our own ideas into the term?” (8)
Unless of course, we can wave our theological magical wand of make believe and appeal to, “it’s a mystery”! Perhaps if we just say it long enough and loud enough, the blizzard of mysterious magical gold dust will snow in all plain sense and normal language? (My Aussie mates would not call this gold dust but bull-dust, and that’s putting it very mildly on their behalf!)
In order to prop up a man-made theory it won’t do to say all that began in the Virgin birth was a new ‘phase’ of the Son’s existence. That is a transformation, not a beginning. That is trans-mutation, not a genesis. That is re-incarnation in reverse!
Nor will it do to say, this was the beginning of his human nature. Well, no. Sorry. Gabriel says the miracle of the virginal begetting is when the Son of Elohim began his existence! Gabriel knew of no personal pre-existence of the Son of Elohim, nobody called ‘Elohim the Son’, changing his nature or his state. And if the Church continues to insist otherwise her witness will be diluted, even muted for failure to heed Gabriel who stands in the Presence of the Almighty.
The Son of Elohim is the Messianic King.
Now here is something rarely mentioned. Have you ever noticed the indissoluble connection Gabriel makes between the descriptive titles “king of Israel” and “Son of Elohim”? In other words, before Luke 1:35 Gabriel says some key things to Mary. Gabriel gives the full context as to why Yeshua is titled ‘Son of Elohim’.
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name him Yeshua. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord Elohim will give him the throne of his father David; and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and his kingdom will have no end” (Lk. 1: 31-33).
According to Gabriel, Yeshua qualifies as the Son of Elohim for two precise reasons ...1 ) his kingship with a kingdom that will remain forever and 2) his miraculous genesis. (9)
Dunn summarises the Scriptural testimony beautifully,
“Matthew thinks of Yeshua’ sonship in terms of a mission that fulfilled the destiny of Israel, and dates Yeshua’ divine sonship from his conception by the power of the Spirit. Luke ... also presents Yeshua’ conception by the power of the Spirit as the moment in time when the Son of Elohim came into existence.” (10)
Wow! I couldn’t have said it any clearer. Putting this together we observe that Yeshua is the Son of Elohim precisely because Elohim declares him to be the Messianic King who will sit on the throne of his direct ancestor David and precisely because Elohim declares He Himself is his Father Who miraculously “begat”, generated, brought him into being, in Mary, at a certain ”today” in history.
Yeshua Believed He Began in Time.
When he stood before Pilate, Yeshua Himself combined these two qualifiers given by Gabriel as verification of his identity,
“Pilate therefore said to him, ‘So you are a king?’ Yeshua answered, ‘You say correctly t hat I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37).
Yeshua claims he is the king of a kingdom not of this world and this is why he was “born”. Here the Greek word for born is our word for “begotten”, or “ to begin existence” (gegenneemai, perf.pass. ind.1 sg.). On Yeshua’ own testimony he was begotten, came into existence, that is, had a beginning, for the very purpose of receiving a kingdom. So we have the combined testimony of Gabriel and Yeshua as to why and how Yeshua is the Son of Elohim. (11)
J.O. Buswell, Ph.D., former Dean of the Graduate School Covenant College, St. Louis, MO examined the question of the begetting of the Son of Elohim and concluded,
“The notion that the Son was begotten by the Father in eternity past, not as an event, but as an inexplicable relationship, has been accepted and carried along in the Christian theology since the fourth century ... We have examined all the instances in which “begotten” or “born” or related words are applied to Christ, and we can say with confidence that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about “begetting” as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.” (12)
Which is to say, there is no such being in the Bible as the “eternally generated Son” or “Elohim the Son”! Surely the time has come to rescue the Biblical meaning of the term, “Son of Elohim” from the centuries of ecclesiastical tradition and non-speak? When Peter confessed that Yeshua was “The Christ, the Son of the Living Elohim” he was commended by Yeshua and told that confession would be the foundation of the Church Yeshua built (Matt. 16:16). Yeshua considered Peter’s confession the cornerstone of true Christian belief, and Peter did not confess Yeshua is “Elohim the Son”.
Here are some strong words to summarise the non-sense of speaking of the “eternal generation” of ‘Elohim the Son’, and what a serious departure this concept is from the “faith once for all delivered to the saints”...
“In unqualified disregard for the Jewish understanding ... and the words of Gabriel himself, the Church ... discarded the time-tested and confirmed definition of ‘son of Elohim’ provided by the Writings and the Jewish prophets. By the year 200 C.E., non-Jews had endowed it with new and butchered implications, and then proceeded to mutate the term into the bastardized hybrid ‘Elohim the Son,’ a term that later wreaked havoc and division upon the Church, as it forever cut ties with its Jewish root. As a result, the son was given a ‘beginning-less beginning, and a so-called ‘eternal generation.’ The doctrines of the deity of Christ, and the Trinity followed right behind them. Their new concocted religion, into which the Church vested itself, became something the Torah and prophets [O.T. Scriptures] know nothing about. They succeeded in creating something altogether foreign and different from what had been prophesied about the true king and Messiah of Israel.” (13)
Do you think these sentiments are too strident? Well, they come from a Hebrew-speaking Jewish believer in Yeshua our Lord Messiah. Is he not entitled to feel aggrieved at how the identity of Yeshua the Son of Elohim has been hijacked by clever Gentile sophistry?
Sola Scriptura?
Furthermore, I cannot understand why my own denomination of Churches of Christ with such a rich heritage of “speaking where the Bible speaks” now almost ubiquitously insist that an “essential” in our confession must include Yeshua as “Elohim the Son”. Certainly, Scripture describes Yeshua as “the Son of Elohim” dozens and dozens of times, but nowhere does the title “Elohim the Son” occur --- not once! So to call Yeshua “Elohim the Son” is a departure from the words and revelation of Scripture, which we boldly assert to be our sole authority in matters of belief. Go figure!
And especially when our own Alexander Campbell wrote,
I object to their making him and calling him an “Eternal Son” ... The names Yeshua, Christ, or Messiah, Only Begotten Son, Son of Elohim, belong to the Founder of the christian religion, and to none else. They express not a relation existing before the christian era, but relations which commenced at that time ... There was no Yeshua, no Messiah, no Christ, no Son of Elohim, no Only Begotten, before the reign of Augustus Caesar ... (14)
Final Warning!
Dr Brown whom I mentioned at the start of this article says,
“To be a ‘Son of Elohim’ one has to be a being who is not God! It is a designation for a creature indicating a special relationship with Elohim. In particular, it denotes Elohim’s representative, Elohim’s vice-regent. It is a designation of kingship, identifying the king as Elohim’s Son.”
Dr Brown is listening to Gabriel! However, if we will not listen to Dr Brown et al, and continue to build a doctrine around a fictional person called ‘Elohim the Son”, and if we will not heed Gabriel and even Yeshua’ own self-description as to how and why he is the Son of Elohim, we better listen to this warning, that if anyone adds to the words of Elohim’s holy Book ... well you know the warning, so may we each one heed it (Rev. 22: 18)!
FOOTNOTES
1. Brown, Colin. “Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy”, Ex Auditu, 1 991, p. 87-88 (Italics original).
2. Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of Elohim. Christian Origins and the Question of Elohim, vol. 2. Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 1996. pp.10,485-486, (italics original).
3. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Second Edition. SCM Press Ltd. London. 1989. p. 7.
4. Kuschel, Karl-Josef. Born Before All Time? The Dispute over Christ’s Origin, Crossroad, NY1992. P.236,237.
5. Hocking, David L. The Nature of Elohim in Plain Language. W aco, Word Book Publishers, 1984, p. 76
6. The Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Editors: Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. IVP. Downers Grove Ill, Leicester, Eng. 1997. “Son of Elohim” entry, p. 1112.
7. Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary: The Signature Edition. Australia’s Heritage Publishing Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia. 2011.
8. Chang, Eric H.H. The Only True Elohim: A Study of Biblical Monotheism, Xlibris Corp., 2009. p. 278.
9. It may come as a surprise to many readers of our English Bibles to learn that Matthew says Jesus Christ had a “genesis”. Your English Bible speaks of “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ” and of “the birth of Jesus Christ” but the Greek word is “genesis” on both occasions (Matt. 1: 1,18). Luke also uses the same word but your English Bible again obscures the fact by translating “genesis” as “birth” (Lk. 1:14).
10. Dunn, James D.G. Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Second Edition. SCM Press Ltd. London. 1989, p. 59.
11. For the technically minded, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis ( edited by Dr Colin Brown), n otes, “The verb gennaoo is understood as a causal form of ginomai.” And ginomai i s defined as, “to be, come to be, be born, be made, be produced, become, come about, happen.” Some commentators try to say Psalm 2:7 when quoted in the NT refers only to Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation and not his beginning by generation in Mary, but here in John 18 --- before his crucifixion and exaltation --- Jesus states his agreement with Gabriel that the Son was brought into being by his miraculous conception!
12. Uriel ben-Mordechai. If? The End of a Messianic Lie, Above and Beyond Ltd., Jerusalem. 2011. p. 194.
13. A Sysatematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Zondervan, 1962, p. 110.