Angus Harley

For many centuries, theologians have held firmly to the doctrine called the eternal generation of the Son. Yet some today are not sure of it, and others disagree with it. This article belongs to those who disagree, for it is not a doctrine that fits the texts to which it lays claim. It is no surprise, then, that modern advocates of eternal generation are alarmed at the drift away from this traditional doctrine and are going on the counter-attack.[1]

What is this doctrine of eternal generation? It says that the Son’s divine sonship was eternally given to him by the Father, and that without the Father giving to the Son his sonship from all eternity, he could never have been Son. The reader can see that it is a highly technical doctrine that is very specifically nuanced. In particular, it pinpoints the relationship between Father and Son as one of begetter and begotten, respectively: from all eternity, the Father (begetter) gives divine sonship to the Son; and, therefore, the Son (begotten) receives from eternity divine sonship from the Father. As said already: a highly technical and very specific doctrine.

I stress the particular and unique nature of this doctrine to avoid pitfalls when exegeting Scripture. It is rather commonplace that advocates of eternal generation conflate this doctrine with that of eternal sonship. Not all theologians of the past would assent to this equation, however. For example, B. B. Warfield reasons that eternal generation is not a valid extrapolation from the titles ‘Father’ and ‘Son’, and that eternal generation, especially as encapsulated by the Nicene Creed, is not helpful, for it deflects from the idea of the aseity of the Son (he has divinity, the divine essence, and divine sonship, in and of himself as God; he does not derive either the divine essence or divine sonship from the Father).[2]        

If I were approaching critiquing eternal generation from the point of view of theology, I would follow Warfield in maintaining that the aseity of the Son prohibits any notion of derivation whatever. I would point out, too, that the concept of ‘eternal generation’ implodes, since to generate means to give existence to something. If Jesus’ sonship has been there eternally, how could it possibly be generated? Therefore, the term ‘generation’ is in itself contradictory, for it conveys a start. More distressingly, that ‘generation’ entails the Son couldn’t be divine Son without someone giving to him this particular divine form of life and status! Nor will it do to say, as is often maintained, that it is all a mystery. No, this is no mystery- just confused theology based on faulty phrases. I see no difference, in that respect, between ‘eternal generation’ and Mary as the ‘mother of God’. Phrases and titles nowhere found in Scripture, yet due to a faulty theology, they have been, most unfortunately, elevated to have a biblical status.  I would then add to my argument that the eternal generation concept, like that of eternal subordination, takes categories and terms belonging to creation and redemption and imposes them on eternity. Finally, I would close out by saying that ‘tradition’ is not a starting argument for understanding Scripture, only Scripture itself is that tradition and starting point. I don’t know how many times I’ve read accounts of eternal generation that are gratuitously and dismissively void of exegesis and solely resting upon ‘tradition’. Tradition is then used as a whip to lash dissenters!

This article focuses on exegesis, for, at the end of the day, if a doctrine does not get down ‘into the trenches’ to do verse-by-verse exegesis, it has a water-bed for a foundation. I could have tackled certain verses that are cited as ‘gimmes’ by the eternal generation (EG) advocates (e.g., John 1:14; 5:26; Heb.1:1ff.). In opting for Hebrews 5:5, I am stretching both the EG reading and also that which opposes it, which normally relies on texts such as Acts 13:33. So, I’ve gone for a midway exegetical point of sorts. That being said, as Hebrews 5:5 is found in Hebrews, I have reserved some comments for Hebrews 1:1ff..

One final comment. My approach utilizes the New Covenant Theology hermeneutic that makes a clear-cut distinction between the reign and ministry of Jesus in heaven in contrast to his earthly priestly ministry. Underlying this contrast are two worlds: this world as the arena of sin and suffering; and the next as the high country of the royal king of heaven. Jesus dealt with the sin belonging to this world in order to enter into God’s holy temple in heaven to commence his Melchizedekian priestly service.

Some basic comments

Advocates of eternal generation lean to at least three contextual factors in exegeting Hebrews 5:5: first, the Son is ‘Son’ before his exaltation in heaven (v8); secondly, he brings “eternal salvation” (v9); and, that Jesus as a Melchizedekian high priest is an eternal Son. All these factors are said to imply eternal generation. Added to these things, because Hebrews 1:5 is the first to use Psalm 2:7 in regard to Jesus’ sonship, in exegeting Hebrews 5:5, this verse is cited as a foundational proof-text for eternal generation. 

The above reading has to comply with the context of v5, namely, Hebrews 5:1-10:

1 For every high priest is taken from among the people and appointed to represent them before God, to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal compassionately with those who are ignorant and erring, since he also is subject to weakness, 3 and for this reason he is obligated to make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. 4 And no one assumes this honor on his own initiative, but only when called to it by God, as in fact Aaron was. 5 So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming high priest, but the one who glorified him was God, who said to him, “You are my Son! Today I have fathered you, 6 as also in another place God says, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.” 7 During his earthly life Christ offered both requests and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death and he was heard because of his devotion. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through the things he suffered. 9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 and he was designated by God as high priest in the order of Melchizedek.[3]

Son as exalted high priest. Contextually, what is indisputable is that, the writer is demonstrating Jesus’ right as Son to be the heavenly high priest after the order of Melchizedek. V1 states the criterion that a high priest must be appointed from the people to represent them and to offer sacrifices as one who is weak. The Levitical high priest offered sacrifices for the people’s sins and for his own sin. Jesus in a highly modified manner met God’s heavenly standard for his New Covenant priesthood, for Jesus was without sin, yet, he was the Son who underwent great suffering in his own earthly experience and obedience. This was his weakness, or as theologians refer to, his ‘humiliation’. In his humiliation and weakness in the flesh (see 2:14), he had to cry out to God by “requests and supplications” (vv2-8). What is sometimes overlooked is Jesus’ cries and intercessions are a form of priestly service before God. We know this for the entire context is about Jesus’ priesthood, and it is contrasted to the Levitical priesthood. Moreover, prayers were part of the Levitical-priestly service before Yahweh. The Son’s earthly sufferings and his priestly cries were the foundational obedience God looked for to exalt him to become Son in the form of the high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Thus, it is said that the Father made Jesus the Son as the great high priest, for it was God’s sole right as Father to do so, and a high priest could not appoint himself.

Prior sonship. That Jesus is Son before his exaltation is not in itself proof of the very technical notion of eternal generation. The entire context is concerned with two stages of Jesus’ sonship and priestly service: one of humiliation and one of exaltation. I will develop these stages in due course. The point being made at this juncture is that his sonship prior to his exaltation is marked out by experiencing suffering that takes place on earth, but no mention is made of some form of eternality to this sonship. 

Eternal salvation. The aspect of eternity related in “eternal salvation” is, once again, not indicative of an eternal relationship pre-creation between the Father and the Son. In v9, the writer is not looking at time from the point of view that we humans everyday use, but as dictated by the ‘clock’ of salvation in Christ Jesus who reigns above in heaven. It’s as if, to use an analogy, he is contrasting earth time to moon time. For the ‘time’ of heaven is set in Hebrews 5 according to the Son’s work, both on earth and in heaven. Heavenly ‘time’ is not according to some neutral, theological, philosophical, notion of endless moments that issue from eternity past into the present, then on into eternity future. The Son dealt with fallen creation and its ‘time’, so that he might ‘start the clock’ of the new creation and its ‘time’. That is why the exalted Son-priest gives to us eternal salvation; it is for us. It brings us into the heavens through the Son to experience its life for the ages-unto-ages (that is, “forever”). For he himself had to ‘pass through’ (dierchomai) the heavens to become that sympathetic high priest forever (Heb.4:14-16).

Melchizedekian priesthood. In interpreting Hebrews 7:3, a few maintain that just as the OT Melchizedek had no father and mother (see Gen.14), so Jesus had no earthly father and no eternal mother. The majority traditional reading considers that Melchizedek of Genesis foreshadows Jesus’ eternal sonship and generation, for both characters are outside of human generation as to father and mother. Some even think that the OT’s Melchizedek might be the Son of God revealing himself in an OT form.

The writer of Hebrews in 7:3 used a literary technique to abstract the original Melchizedek from an ordinary life and birth. He just kind of pops up from nowhere, in Genesis 14, as if floating in mid-air. This abstracted Melchizedek gives the writer of Hebrews the basis for comparing favorably Genesis’ Melchizedek with Jesus’ high priestly sonship: it is not of this world; he is not a Son derived from human time, of human parents with human genealogy; nor is he tied to the earthly Levitical priesthood that relies heavily on a parental pedigree; for the Son is ‘born’ into heaven, from his heavenly Father, and as priest ministers forever in the heavenly realm. 

The idea that the OT Melchizedek was the Son of God undermines Hebrews contrast between OT prophetic revelation and NT ‘Son” revelation (Heb.1:1-2). In the OT, the Son was yet to unveil himself as Son (see ahead), so that he could not be ‘Melchizedek’ at that juncture. Which is to say that, the view of Son in Hebrews 5:5 is specifically priestly in nature, as we will see.

As said before, the eternal nature of the Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus is not a reference to eternity past, but the “forever” of heavenly salvation. Unlike the Levitical priests, his earthly work is complete, so that, as the high priest of heaven he lives on forever for the sake of believers.

In concluding, Hebrews 5:5 comfortably ties Jesus’ exaltation to the status of the heavenly high priest after the order of Melchizedek with the moment that he was made the Son by the Father. For the entire context is priestly in nature. Consequently, the sonship mentioned in 5:1-10 is to be understood in the light of this priestly ‘control’. This contextual information puts a tremendous strain upon the very technical notion of the divine Son in eternity being ‘generated’ of the Father. 

We could move on to Hebrews 1:1ff, the central text for eternal generation taken from Hebrews as a proof-text for understanding 5:5, but we still have work to do in explaining the writer’s meaning in Hebrews 5:5. 

Two stages of sonship and priesthood

Two stages. A closer look at Hebrews 5:5 in context specifically relates two stages of sonship and two of priestly service. The Messianic Son experienced the stage of learning obedience on earth through the things he suffered. This is specifically contrasted to the Son as the exalted high priest in heaven after the order of Melchizedek. To be that heavenly priest, he had to learn to walk in the steps of a Son and high priest who suffered on earth. Why? Because he needed this experience to qualify him to be the high priest and Son, exalted in heaven, who could have compassion on those who sinned and suffered on earth. As one who suffered, he was perfectly suited, therefore, to represent the weak, sinners, and to call upon his Father who is in heaven, so that they might receive his grace and salvation, especially in times of suffering and when warring with sin (see Heb.12:1). 

In the immediate context, the cross as such is not cited. So, which stage did it belong to: the suffering one, or the Son’s exaltation? It is undoubtedly the stage of suffering and death, for he offered himself up unto death for our sake, and only then he entered into heaven to sanctify it by his blood for the sake of his own brothers (Heb.9:14-27).

Distinguishing the high priestly stages. The context therefore entails two stages of high priestly service: one of suffering, the other of exaltation. His earthly priesthood was not Levitical, nor was it something other than high priestly. Nor was his earthly stage merely generically ‘priestly’. He was a high priest whilst on earth. Even so, the suffering stage was not Melchizedekian, for it belonged to his exaltation alone, as it is heavenly and ‘forever’ in nature (see before).

Distinguishing the sonship stages. There is the suffering Son who cries out to God, and there is the exalted Son, who was made as Son according to the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

Eschatological Son/sons. Jesus’ sonship in Hebrews is explicitly tied to the new age of the new revelation of God in his Son in these last days (Heb.1:2). “Last days” indicates the ending of this world and the imposition of the new world and its heavenly ‘time’ of forever. The Son operated within the “last days” to: 1) end this age by his death and sufferings; and, 2) bring “sons”[4] into the new, resurrection, age through his exaltation. Their sonship is, in other words, divided into sufferings in this world and exaltation in the next (see Heb.2:10). It is on that basis that Hebrews can warn Christians that if they are truly “sons”, they will undergo “discipline” due to their weakness in this world (Heb.12:8). This is to say that true sons will endure suffering and discipline in this realm, and only then be exalted into their rest as sons with the firstborn in heaven.

Messianic pattern. As already noted, eternal salvation is “for us”, and as such it is patterned after Jesus’ own model of sonship: sufferings on earth and then exaltation to be in the heavenly country “forever”. To impose ontological sonship on Hebrews 5:5 removes this pattern and union between Christ as mediatorial Son and God’s sons.

A priestly sonship

Separate or one? Typically, advocates of eternal generation separate Jesus’ sonship from his priesthood. However, in the context of Hebrews 5:5 the emphasis is not on the Son as distinct to his priesthood, for sonship is being defined in priestly categories and terms. In fact, it might take the reader back that the writer of Hebrews takes a verse from the OT that is about the Davidic son and king (Psa.2:7) and applies it in context only to Jesus in his high priestly office as Melchizedek.[5] However, if Jesus’ sonship here is taken in its exclusively Messianic nature, then there is no need to think that sonship and priesthood are separate concepts. For Jesus’ sonship is, contextually, specifically expressed as high priestly in form. This brings us to state more clearly the difference already noted between Jesus’ Messianic sonship and his ontological sonship.

Messianic/functional sonship. There is traditionally a distinction made between the ontological sonship of Jesus and his Messianic sonship. The former relates to him in his divine nature: he was, is, and will be, always eternal Son. This is Jesus’ sonship as purely and solely divine, as if it were stripped down to its divine ‘bare bones’. Conversely, Jesus as the Messianic son pertains to his mediatorial work as the Messiah, that he is the anointed prophet, priest, and king. As Messianic Son he is the Man for us, taking upon himself the roles of prophet, priest, and king. Consequently, this form of sonship is highly functional in nature, and is not concerned with Jesus’ eternal divinity as taken in and of itself.

This functional, Messianic, form of sonship accounts for the use of Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, for they refer to Jesus’ priesthood and kingship. Yet, as said before, the context of Hebrews 5:5 is stronger again because it puts the stress on priesthood not sonship, nor is his kingship the main concern, leaving us with the clear impression that Jesus’ priesthood is ‘Son’ in nature. By extension, one can extend this formula to Jesus’ kingship: it is Son in nature, for he is the fulfillment of the Davidic king model of the OT (see ahead). 

‘Son’, not ‘the Son’. The NET bible renders 5:8 as, “he was a son”. Note the lower case and lack of definitive article. Similarly, in Hebrews 1:2, the NET states, “in a son”. See again the lower case and lack of definitive article. This is because, on both occasions, the Greek text does not have the definite article. The NET explains the use of the lower case as due to the writer stressing the type or quality of revelation: it is Son revelation. The NET does not venture to comment on 5:8; however, I would suggest that this qualitative aspect of sonship is derived from its Messianic nature: it is priestly, kingly, and prophetic, rolled into one. “Son”, then, is the sum of the fulfillment of all these roles and offices. 

What, then, of the writer’s use of “the Son” (e.g., 1:3)? Is he going back to Jesus’ divine nature and divine, ontological, sonship? I will look at this issue in its wider context in Hebrews 1:1ff. later. For the moment, when in Hebrews Jesus is called “the Son”, the emphasis is upon him as ‘the’ Davidic Son who fulfills the OT Scriptures. He is ‘the One’, ‘the Son’. 

OT fulfillment

Messianic sonship. The writer of Hebrews draws upon two central OT texts here in 5:5-6: Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4. Both these texts anticipate the priestly son of the heavens, the king over all. Psalm 2:7 is about the Davidic king that became the son of Yahweh. This happened at his enthronement. ‘Son’ in that setting is drawing upon the Davidic promise and God’s enthronement of David’s heir or ‘son’ (2 Sam.7). ‘Son’, in other words, is not a statement of ontological identity, but it is about function, status, and inheritance. The unique nature of the Davidic son is then picked up in Psalm 110:4, for the Davidic king will be a priest after the eternal order of Melchizedek. A Davidic son who is both king and priest, who becomes son upon his installation as king. 

Recalling the two stages. I would ask the reader to keep this relationship between son, priesthood, and enthronement, in mind when considering what was spoken of earlier, namely, the two stages of Jesus’ priestly sonship: one earthly, the other heavenly. 

I have written an article on the distinct stages in David’s kingship.[6] Very early on, he is made king (and therefore ‘son’) before God. Yet, it is much later that he is exalted to be king in his coronation. His pre-coronation sonship and kingship is marked by one factor: persecution. He constantly is fleeing from Saul, who was still installed as king of Israel. Once Saul dies and David has defeated his internal enemies in Israel, he is coronated, or installed, formally, and at that moment becomes the king as recognized by the people. He sits upon his throne, which he could not do so before, and he enters into his royal city and palace to begin his reign as son. So, there are two stages to his kingship: he is kingly son in the sight of God before his exaltation, in a time of suffering; and, then, Yahweh exalts him and formally coronates him as king before the people after his period of wanderings and sufferings. It was not that David was not king before his exaltation, for his suffering kingship was a preparatory stage for his formal, exalted, coronated, kingship. 

What about the priestly element? The Melchizedek verse in Psalm 110 is telling us that the anointed king (the messianic Davidic king) is also a great priest, just like the real Melchizedek (Gen.14:8). Some maintain that David exemplified elements of a priestly nature before his exaltation during his ‘exile’ or suffering period. For example, he entered into the temple to receive food from Abiathar the high priest (Mk.2:25-27; 1 Sam.21). Normally, the bread of the temple went to priests (Lev.24:5-9). Outside of this time of suffering, David also on one occasion wore a linen ephod (2 Sam.6:14) as the king of a priestly nation (see Exo.19:6). He built an altar (1 Chr.21:18-30), created Levitical orders (1 Chr.24:3), and, ushered the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chr.15). 

So, in-built to the OT teaching on the Christ was the Davidic model of sonship with its two stages of sonship, kingship, and priesthood. He was no ordinary priest, for his priestly actions were not Levitical but ‘other’. This otherness is developed throughout the OT in the form of the Melchizedek priesthood and by combining priesthood with kingship for the Davidic prince (e.g., Zech.6:1-5). In application, Jesus was the high priest/king who suffered, and then the high priest/king who reigned.

“Today”

The general position. Some scholars after conceding that Jesus is made great high priest in his exaltation, and acknowledging that Jesus as Son is tied to the coronated Davidic prince and Melchizedek figure of the OT, think that the context of Hebrews 5:5 does not specify when Jesus was made either Son or high priest.[7] The reason for this hesitation is because Jesus possessed both priesthood and sonship before and after his exaltation. Whereas, the traditional view of eternal generation in Hebrews 5:5 of course roots “today” in eternity past. 

Explicit wording. The above views are not supported by the explicit wording of Hebrews 5:5 that does give a time and start to the Son-priest within created time of some sort, ” “You are my Son! Today I have fathered you” “. If we allow there to be two forms/stages to the sonship of the Messianic Son, then we can refer to him as Son without inheritance and Son with inheritance. “Today”, in that context, reflects the resurrection day-age of the Son’s installment as this priestly-king.

This is exactly what Acts 13:33 teaches, for in the exclusive context of the Son’s resurrection (vv16-43) Paul declares that Jesus fulfilled Psalm 2:7. 

A similar model of sonship is taken up in Galatians 3:23-4:6, which implies two stages of sonship: slave sonship outside of faith Christ; Spirit-sonship by faith in Christ. More to the point, Spirit-sonship, or faith-sonship, is tied to an inheritance as heirs, and to the first and true marking out of the New Covenant believers as “sons”.

Repent “today”. It would be absurd to take “today” in Hebrews 3:7, 13, 15; 4:7, to refer to eternity past, or even the bare concept of eternity. Sinners are called to repent “today”, now.

For that reason, the “today” of repentance is a day that was appointed by God, “So God again ordains a certain day, “Today,” speaking through David after so long a time, as in the words quoted before,“Oh, that today you would listen as he speaks! Do not harden your hearts” “(4:7). Why would God “ordain” a metaphorical “day” to highlight and underscore yet another metaphor, namely, “today”? The entire argument of Hebrews 4 is concerned with the establishment of the heavenly sabbath-rest that is now open to all of God’s people through faith in the risen and exalted Christ who has gone there before them as the compassionate high priest. 

A marker of the new age. It is certain, therefore, that the various references to “today” in Hebrews are expressing the same theology that was behind the stages of Jesus’ priesthood and sonship. That is, we are looking at the introduction and superiority of the “day” of the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ and all that accompanies them. “Today” represents the eternity of heaven clashing with the fallen time of earth. The various calls to repent “today” are, therefore, not just to highlight the urgent need to repent now; for the writer is stressing that the resurrection order and its age, or “day”, is imposing itself upon all sinners, even upon Christians, in this world and its time. The chronology and time of the new age of the resurrection are imposing themselves on this fallen world and its time, on all its inhabitants. Sinners must now repent, for these are the last days, and this age is dying off; the only abiding age is that of the high priest of heaven. Thus, the Old Covenant, which belongs to this world and age, is fading away, whereas the New Covenant of the resurrection age of heaven has imposed itself (Heb.8:13). 

To repeat, “today” is pointing to a new “day”, on the one hand, an ordained day that was founded in Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation, but also the end of these current days we are in. To root this day in eternity past simply does not do justice to Hebrews’ argument about the Messianic Son. Consequently, to think that “today” is not a distinct chronological marker that demarcates the present fallen days from the resurrection age in Christ Jesus’ exaltation renders null and void the contextual reading of the word.

We are now in a better position to tackle the main argument from Hebrews 1 used by those arguing for the Son’s eternal generation.

Hebrews 1 

Jesus’ sonship. As Hebrews 1 is not my focus, I will, as with the theological side of things, make a few observations only. The entire chapter is concerned with the Son in his heavenly inheritance. This fact should be enough in itself to caution readers about injecting into the setting a thoroughgoing form of ontology. For the “Son” is first mentioned in terms of redemption history as the one by whom the Father speaks in the last days (v2a). The second thing we are informed of is that this Son is an heir and was appointed to this status (v2b). None of these ‘Son’ factors are ontological. How could the Son be eternally an heir, or eternally be appointed to an inheritance? Or how could the Son be eternally a revelation in the last days to us? What qualifies this Son as heir? He made the ages/world (v2c). It is then we are told of the current status of this heir in vv3-4. To repeat, these verses are not concerned with eternity past, but the results of Jesus’ sacrifice on earth and his current condition as Son. It is now that he is the radiance of God’s glory and sustains all things. He came by these conditions “when he had accomplished cleansing for sin”. And so “he became far better” than the angels, for “he has inherited a name”. Plainly, an eternal relationship, or an eternal divine condition, is not on the writer’s radar.

What do these things tell us about the nature of Jesus’ sonship? It conveys that it was before creation, but that it was also tied to creation and an inheritance. His sonship as heir apparent was revealed in creation. He was appointed as heir presumably before all things were created. And having suffered and died, he cleansed from sin, and then sat down to receive his inheritance as Son, as heir. This is to say that, we have yet another stage of sonship, so that we have now identified three levels between Hebrews 5:1-10 and Hebrews 1:1-5:

  1. Jesus is the exalted priestly Son forever in heaven after the order of Melchizedek;
  2. Jesus is the suffering high priestly Son on earth;
  3. Jesus was the Son who was appointed heir before creation, and who created all ages.

These stages are not teaching an eternal relationship in and of itself; nor do they come close to suggesting the very technical notion of eternal generation.

Pattern for us. As above with Jesus’ two stages of high priestly sonship, I believe it is most likely that Jesus is marked out as Son here in Hebrews 1 as a pattern for his brothers. That is, it is as Son that Jesus inherits, and it is as sons that Jesus’ brothers “inherit salvation” (1:14). His pre-creation appointment to be Son-heir, I believe, reflects the same pattern in their own lives: God has appointed them to become sons who inherit the new creation in Christ Jesus. That is, before they even came into this world, they were set apart as sons ready to inherit eternal salvation (aka, the doctrine of predestination).

The role of Jesus’ deity. How, then, do we account for the clear references to Jesus’ deity throughout Hebrews 1? His true deity as God is not taken in itself, either. It is related as functioning via his work of creation, redemption, and as reigning as king. Only God could be the Son who created all the ages. Only God could inherit a name of Son and reign over all things.

Nor ought we mistake his Creatorhood as a thing in itself that contextually is advertising an ontological form of divine sonship. Hebrews 1:8-9 concerns the Son as heir. Psalm 45:7 is referring to the Messianic king, but this one turns out to be no mere earthly son of David, but God in the flesh- Son! Similarly, the “firstborn” (1:6) is no mere human Davidic heir (Psa.89:27), but is the divine firstborn- Son! Yet, note how even the creation of all things was not- indeed could never- be the inheritance of the Son, for the Son will destroy both this world and his enemies in it (1:10-13). His inheritance is, in other words, of a new-creation status. It was never about this world! His ability to create this world was to prepare him for the creation of the next age. His role as Son, firstborn, and heir, was, first of all, to create this world; secondly, to then dismantle this world because of its sin; and, thirdly, to bring brothers into the new world, the heavenly country (Heb.11:28; 12:23).

Caution in extrapolating. It is evident from these things that the Son is divine, and is therefore Yahweh of the OT. The question before us is this: does this mean he was eternally Son? Or was the Father-Son relationship initiated by the Godhead to bring about the purposes of the new creation via the old creation? And even if Son and Father are eternal titles, how much do we read into them? Certainly, the writer of Hebrews gives full-blown deity to the Son as Creator, God, Lord, and Redeemer. But it is folly, in answering these questions, to draw a straight-line between the Son in his actions in time and the Son in pre-creation. For if we do this, we will, like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, create an inferior, human, god; because most of what we know about the Son is tied into his condition of humiliation and his human mediatorship- the Man for us. Sadly, EG and eternal subordination read too much back into eternity by way of categories and concepts borrowed from creation and redemption. Although Calvin did believe in EG, he seemed to focus more on the future rather than the past. In other words, there was no doubt to him that the Son was from eternity, but that this sonship is revealed via his role as the Man for us; it is in eternity future that God will disclose the full deity of the Son to us. Because of these things, a few have suggested that we should not go where we have no revelatory license to go: eternity past is sparingly spoken of in the bible. What do you think?

[1] E.g., Retrieving Eternal Generation, eds. Fred Sander and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017).

[2] B. B. Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity”, Monergism, accessed September 6, 2024, https://www.monergism.com/biblical-doctrine-trinity; “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity”, Monergism, accessed September 6, 2024, https://www.monergism.com/biblical-doctrine-trinity.

[3] All biblical citations are from the NET bible, unless otherwise stated.

[4] NIV “sons and daughters” obscures the theme of eschatological sonship, here, patterned after Christ’s Sonship. Same for “children” (NLT).

[5] See, for example, Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, NT Commentary, Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation Book 36, (n.d., B&H Publishing Group): Kindle: Heb.5:5.

[6] Angus Harley, “David’s Kingdom in the OT as a shadow of Jesus’ kingdom in the Gospels”, All Things New Covenant, January 19, 2024, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2024/01/19/davids-kingship-in-the-ot-as-a-shadow-of-jesus-kingship-in-the-gospels/.

[7] See Schreiner, for example: Hebrews, Kindle: Heb.5:5.