First the Son of God consents to be given by the Father, then he is begotten of the Father and then he is sent by the Father in to the world

John 3 v 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Galations 4 v 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

The Son cannot be sent until he is first “made of a woman” and “made under the law”. The Son must first be made flesh and in the flesh made subject to the rule of the law in order for him to be sent. He is not sent as the co-equal Son sharing the glory of the Father. He is sent after he has left this glory being begotten in the flesh. The Son cannot be sent before he is given and begotten by the Father. The act of sending is usually seen as the Son being commanded to go in to the world by the Father thus making him subordinate to the Father. In other words the Father is the Lord of the Son before he is begotten. I disagree with this interpretation of the biblical testimony. If the Son is forced by the Father to come in to the world and has no choice in the matter how do we know that he came gladly to redeem us? The anti-trinitarians always interpret such texts which state that the Son was sent by the Father to mean that Jesus could not be co-equal to the Father because he was commanded to go in to the world by the Father therefore he was never not in a state of submission to the Father in his pre-humanly-existent state. In my view this is not the case and the biblical texts I have quoted in this post show it not to be the case.

You might say that the parable of the wicked tenants proves otherwise, namely that the son is under the lordship of his father and that this proves that the Son of God is under the lordship of the Father.  My rejoinder would be that parables depicting earthly life are not a perfect analogy of heavenly things but are an approximation to that reality. There are limits to the extent to which we can apply the earthly truth to the heavenly reality. Especially in the case of the relationship of the Father to the Son in eternity.

The pre-existent Son in the act of giving his life was acting completely voluntarily. There was no element of compulsion involved whatsoever. On the other hand someone who is sent is compelled and has no choice in the matter. He is in a state of subjection to the one who is sending him. The pre-existent Son gives his life as a ransom for many. He is not compelled to do so:

Matthew 20 v 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. 

Mark 10 v 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

John 15 v 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Galatians 2 v 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

My belief therefore is that there is a covenant in eternity between the Father and the Son, as co-equal members of the trinity, in which the Son makes a covenant with the Father to be given to the elect as a sacrifice for their sins; to be begotten and sent to this end as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to First the Son of God consents to be given by the Father, then he is begotten of the Father and then he is sent by the Father in to the world

  1. Anonymous says:

    In the form of angel of Lord, the Firstborn was compelled to end all his complaints & arguments by rather surrendering it to God’s will. If the Firstborn were co-equal with the God, there must be at least one occurrence that depicts otherwise how God obeys the Son’s will.
    Metaphysically, the Bible is Unitarian.
    Zech 1
    12 Then the angel of the LORD answered and said, O LORD of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?

    Also, there’s no such any serious rebuttal of Trinitarian commentators on a physical depiction in Isaiah 6.2 how Seraphim cover their eyes from seeing “one only God” – rather than two or three bodies – which rather proves that the Bible is undeniably Unitarian.
    Isa 6
    2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

  2. madmanna says:

    “Zech 1
    12 Then the angel of the LORD answered and said, O LORD of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?”

    I am not so sure this is the theophany. I don’t think so myself. I think this is an ordinary angel. Can you prove otherwise?

  3. madmanna says:

    “Also, there’s no such any serious rebuttal of Trinitarian commentators on a physical depiction in Isaiah 6.2 how Seraphim cover their eyes from seeing “one only God” – rather than two or three bodies – which rather proves that the Bible is undeniably Unitarian.”

    He saw the Lord as the Lord chose to represent himself. He doesn’t say what form he took. Why should he have seen any “bodies”?

  4. madmanna says:

    I’m glad you are having fun but it is also fun for me to read your flawed arguments. The Son has no bodily form in heaven before the incarnation and resurrection. He did appear with a body on earth as the Angel of the Lord but we can safely assume that he did not use this form in heaven. So there was nothing for Isaiah to see as a bodily form.

  5. madmanna says:

    “Jehovah and Seraphim appear rightly above the temple, on the earth, not in heaven. ”

    That’s true. Jehovah shows himself as one person in the vision. From my point of view it doesn’t prove anything because he is one person and he is also three persons. He exists as a paradox from my point of view. In the OT he reveals his unipersonality, for the most part, and in the NT his tripersonal being. I don’t have to explain it to anybody. I just have to believe it.

    John 12 v 41These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

    The seraphim don’t have any glory because Jehovah allows only his glory in the temple. So it is not possible that John could have been speaking of the glory of Jesus as a Seraphim.

    “Rather, Isaiah just sees Seraphim. In the belief of JWs, yes Jesus is one of Seraphim. However, it just proves how Jesus is equal to angels, not to Jehovah.”

    It is neither a fact nor a truth that Jesus is a Seraphim. Therefore nothing is proved. Only facts and truths prove things.

  6. madmanna says:

    “Angels as well as Seraphim share the glory of Lord.”

    Angels can’t be the effective cause of such a glory. If they shared it they would share in the cause of it. Only the power of God is possible of producing such an effect.

    The manifestation of this glory is to glorify God not any angel or human.

    “and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.”

    You are struggling and desperate as is evident for all to see.

  7. madmanna says:

    It’s what John says about what Isaiah says he sees that forms the argument.

    “John 12 v 41These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.”

    God is a jealous God so only his glory can exist in the vision. No other glory can exist alongside it in the same display of it. A creature could not create a glory to exist with it alongside of it.

  8. madmanna says:

    Pagan superstition of Islam.

  9. christian smith says:

    Hey, blogmaster. what happened to your comments on the august 2015 posts by g mendross? did you actually become a unitarian by saying three beings can be in one being? Two months and nobody from your ecumenical council can help you. Are you done summarizing the whole Bible? All you have to do is admit that God is a mystery. Problem solved. No need to explain. Wasn’t that the excuse of those who came up with the creeds? No need to explain only to express.

    Are we still waiting for the progressive revelation of the answers even after the incarnation and ascension to heaven?

    don’t take anonymous seriously. he just copies and pastes JW propaganda without understanding any of it. maybe he just searches his files for relevant info and just copy paste and post it.
    no offense anonymous. he can be a teenager you know.

    how can a true Christian humbly defend his faith by calling others humbug and hogwash? Why can’t you be more like Stephen and Jesus who forgave those who don’t know what they are doing?

    Maybe the comments of anonymous are the thorns on your side ala Paul?

    peace.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The parable of the owner of vineyard is the strongest rebuttal against many foundations of Trinitarian theology.
    i) The term “Son of God” is for mortal. The evil tenants succeed in killing the son of the Owner.
    If both the son and the Owner were God, the son must have been invincible.
    Gal 4
    1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

    Jesus acknowledges that he is just a figurative Son of God, that is the term Son refers to a mortal heir. That’s it. Jesus knows what he is: the Son is not an immortal God.

    ii) The Owner of vineyard shows more concern to secure his valuable vineyard rather than to love the murderous tenants who spoiled it.
    Jesus acknowledges that the God just wants to take back this world from the devils and sinners.

    iii) The Owner of vineyard doesn’t send his only heir to be killed by the tenants.
    Jesus acknowledges that the God doesn’t have an evil mind to sacrifice his only heir.

    iv) The heir doesn’t get revived again (at the time of revenge).
    By so, the heir is not alive, nor is he taken to sit at the right hand of the Owner.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s