God is declared to have been made flesh, and therefore must have preexisted as Son. 2d. By the resurrection he was powerfully manifested to be the Son of God as to his divine nature. The phrases, according to the flesh, and according to the spirit of holi- ness, are evidently antithetical, designating severally the Lord's human and divine natures.
63. State the argument from Kom. viii., 3.
Here God's own Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, Obviously he must have preexisted as such before he assumed the likeness of sinful flesh, the assumption of which certainly could not have constituted him the own Son of God.
64. State the argument from Col. i., 15-21.
In this passage the apostle sets forth at length the nature and glory of him whom, in the thirteenth verse, he had called God's dear Son. Thus he proves that Christ as Son is the image of the invisible God, and that by him all things consist, etc.
65. State the argument from Heb. i., 5-8.
Paul is here setting forth the superiority of Christ as a divine person. As divine he calls him " the Son," " the first begotten." This Son is brought into the world, and therefore must have pre- existed as such. As Son he is declared to be God, and to reign upon an everlasting throne.
66. What passages are relied upon by the opponents of the orthodox doctrine for proof that the term Son, as applied to Christ, is an official title, and how can they be explained ?
From such passages as Matt, xvi., 16, and John i., 49, it is argued that the epithets, Christ or Messiah, and King of Israel, are equivalent to Son of God, and that consequently he is called Son only because he occupies these offices. From John x., 35, 36, it is argued that Christ is called Son, because the Father hath sanctified him and sent him into the world.
We answer that not one of these passages, nor any other, ex- pressly declares that Christ is called Son because he bears the office of mediator; they merely declare that he is Son of God, and holds that office. But even if it could be proved that he is called
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. , 151
on occasion " Son of God/' on the ground of any subordinate relation, which, as man or as mediator, he sustains to God, that fact could not in the least invalidate the testimony of those pas- sages which we have above cited to prove that he is also called Son of God in a higher sense, as the Word who from the begin- ning was in the bosom of the Father.
67. Prove that neither the 2d Psalm nor Kom. i., 4, teach that Christ was made Son of God.
Dr. Alexander says (see Com. on Psalms) with relation to Psalms ii., 7, that it means simply, " Thou art my Son, this day I am thy Father, now always eternally thy Father. Even if ' this day' be referred to the inception of the filial relation, it is thrown indefinitely back by the form of reminiscence, or narra- tion in the first clause of the verse. l Jehovah said to me/ but when ? If understood to mean from everlasting the form of ex- pression would be perfectly in keeping with the other figurative forms by which the Scriptures represent things really ineffable in human language." With regard to Eom. i., 4, Dr. Hodge says (see Com. on Komans) that the Greek word dpcodevrog, translated in the authorized version declared, is always elsewhere in the New Testament used to signify constitute, appoint. But the great majority of commentators, including some of the most ancient Greek fathers, agree in interpreting it in this passage in the sense of declare, manifest.
It is very evident that Christ called himself Son of God, and was so recognized by his disciples before his resurrection, and, therefore, he might have been revealed or manifested to be the Son of God, but could not have been constituted such by that event.
68. Show that Acts xiii., 32, 33 does not prove that Jesus was m,ade Son of God.
It is argued from this passage that Jesus was constituted Son of God by his resurrection, as the first stage of his official exal- tation. This can not be, 1st, because he was sent into the world as Son of God. 2d. Because the word dvaarrjaag, having raised up, refers to the raising up Christ at his birth, and not to his resurrection (there is nothing in the Greek corresponding to the
152 THE HOLY TRINITY.
word again in the English.) When this word is used to desig- nate the resurrection it is usually qualified by the phrase from the dead, as in verse 34th. Yerse 32 declares the fulfillment of the promise referred to in verse 23d. — See Alexander's Com. on Acts.
69. How can those passages ivhich speak of the Son as in- ferior and subject to the Father he reconciled with this doctrine ?
It is objected that such passages prove that Jesus, as Son, is inferior and subject to the Father.