John 1:1 and Jesus’ Sonship in Adoptionist thought

[dak]

I'm not an Adoptionist, but if I wanted to make that argument, I think I'd start in Psalms 2, with David's "To day I have begotten you."

For David, the declaration of his adoption was apotheotic. By virtue of becoming a divine son of God, he also ascended to the throne of Israel. That gives the Adoptionist precedent.

But more troubling is the way the New Testament writers co-opt those same verses repeatedly and attribute their fulfillment to Jesus.

This discussion was prompted in another thread which the OP and I did not want to hijack, and it was concerning a comment I made about John 1:1 in that thread, and therefore that is why I started with John 1:1.

However I also wholeheartedly agree with your statement here because you can still find the whole decree from Psalm 2:7 in Codex Bezae, right where it belongs, (Luke 3:22).

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae%2DGreek.xml#B02K16

Western Medieval Manuscripts : Codex Bezae

There are half-a-dozen ancient manuscripts which are the foundation of our understanding of the text of the New Testament

cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk

So unless someone can find a way to prove that the Father said this to the Meshiah somewhere outside of scripture: it was originally in the scripture, and we have scripture evidence for that.

Acts 13:30-33 ASV
30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers,
33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 5:4-5 ASV
4 And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron.
5 So Christ also glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that spake unto him, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee:

Where is it written anywhere in the modern N/T that the Father said these words to the Anointed One? For one, it is still found in Codex Bezae, and for two, there is also suspicious evidence that it was in the original Hebrew Matthew and was removed by Jerome who confesses to have rendered that Hebrew text, (or possibly Aramaic), into both Greek and Latin. This decree, spoken by the Father to the Meshiah at his immersion, was a thorn in the side of the RCC eternal Son doctrine because they did not understand the Nomina Sacra.

 

[ElieG12]

These other words of Jesus recorded by John are strikingly clear on the question of when God sent his Son into the world.

John 16:28 ἐξῆλθον παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον·
πάλιν ἀφίημι τὸν κόσμον καὶ πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα.

(NIV) I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.
(Darby) I came out from the Father and have come into the world; again, I leave the world and go to the Father.
(ESV) I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.

So, the possibilities are:
1) They agreed in heaven before Jesus came to earth
2) at the moment Jesus was born after a miraculous conception
3) when he was baptized and his messiahship began publicly.

The Scriptures show that it was 1) that happened, for Jesus speaks many times about the things the Father told him before he came, about what he had to say, what he had to do, and what would happen to him during his temporary stay as a human.

 

[Wick Stick]

This discussion was prompted in another thread which the OP and I did not want to hijack, and it was concerning a comment I made about John 1:1 in that thread, and therefore that is why I started with John 1:1.

However I also wholeheartedly agree with your statement here because you can still find the whole decree from Psalm 2:7 in Codex Bezae, right where it belongs, (Luke 3:22).

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae%2DGreek.xml#B02K16

Western Medieval Manuscripts : Codex Bezae

There are half-a-dozen ancient manuscripts which are the foundation of our understanding of the text of the New Testament

cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk

So unless someone can find a way to prove that the Father said this to the Meshiah somewhere outside of scripture: it was originally in the scripture, and we have scripture evidence for that.

Acts 13:30-33 ASV
30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers,
33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 5:4-5 ASV
4 And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron.
5 So Christ also glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that spake unto him, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee:

Where is it written anywhere in the modern N/T that the Father said these words to the Anointed One? For one, it is still found in Codex Bezae, and for two, there is also suspicious evidence that it was in the original Hebrew Matthew and was removed by Jerome who confesses to have rendered that Hebrew text, (or possibly Aramaic), into both Greek and Latin. This decree, spoken by the Father to the Meshiah at his immersion, was a thorn in the side of the RCC eternal Son doctrine because they did not understand the Nomina Sacra.

It's interesting that Luke 3 would have applied Psa 2:7 to Jesus' baptism, but in Acts it's also Luke that attributes it to His resurrection.

I explain these incongruences by accepting that the NT authors played fast-and-loose with their "fulfillments" of the OT.

I wonder how you explain it?

 

[Hiddenthings]

These other words of Jesus recorded by John are strikingly clear on the question of when God sent his Son into the world.

John 16:28 ἐξῆλθον παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον·
πάλιν ἀφίημι τὸν κόσμον καὶ πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα.

(NIV) I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.
(Darby) I came out from the Father and have come into the world; again, I leave the world and go to the Father.
(ESV) I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.

So, the possibilities are:
1) They agreed in heaven before Jesus came to earth
2) at the moment Jesus was born after a miraculous conception
3) when he was baptized and his messiahship began publicly.

The Scriptures show that it was 1) that happened, for Jesus speaks many times about the things the Father told him before he came, about what he had to say, what he had to do, and what would happen to him during his temporary stay as a human.

When Israel received manna in the wilderness, Scripture describes it as “bread from heaven” (Exodus 16:4; Psalm 78:24). Yet, the manna was not manufactured in heaven and then sent down; rather, it was called “from heaven” because it was produced by God’s direct word and power (cf. Psalm 33:9: “He spoke, and it came to be”). Its heavenly origin speaks of divine source and authority, not literal spatial location.

In the same way, Jesus is called “the bread that came down from heaven” (John 6:32–33). This does not require him to have pre-existed physically in heaven before being born of Mary. Instead, just as manna was made by God’s word, Jesus, God’s Son was conceived by the power of God’s Spirit (Luke 1:35). His being “from heaven” points to his divine source and appointment, not to a prior bodily existence.

Thus, both manna and Christ share the same principle: they are “from heaven” because they are the result of God’s creative word and purpose.

Not difficult really.

 

[Wick Stick]

The very notion that a Christian would question God’s power to bring about the conception in Mary is astounding. It only reveals how far some are willing to go in order to introduce foreign ideas.

Introduce? no.

But I'm willing to give an ear to criticism. That's Apologetics 101 - if we don't seriously consider arguments against, then we cannot really answer them.

 

[ElieG12]

...Not difficult really.

That's what I say: it's very simple, and who is complicating things for some?

John 3:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man. (...) 31 The one who comes from above is over all others. The one who is from the earth is from the earth and speaks of things of the earth. The one who comes from heaven is over all others. (...)
... 6:33 For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” (...) 38 for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. (...) 62 What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?
... 8:23 He went on to say to them: “You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world. 24 That is why I said to you: You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins.” (...) 57 Then the Jews said to him: “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.
... 16:28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.
... 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, (...) 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

 

[Hiddenthings]

It's interesting that Luke 3 would have applied Psa 2:7 to Jesus' baptism, but in Acts it's also Luke that attributes it to His resurrection.

I explain these incongruences by accepting that the NT authors played fast-and-loose with their "fulfillments" of the OT.

I wonder how you explain it?

This verse is applied in Hebrews 1:5 to Christ at the time of his glorification (taking on immortality), when he was appointed as High Priest; therefore, the ‘today’ refers to his resurrection, not his birth. Compare also Hebrews 5:5; Romans 1:3–4; Isaiah 55:3; Acts 13:33–34

If you are referring to Luke 3:22 NET tn Or “with you I am well pleased.”

You are my Son, whom I love. It is unclear whether this is an allusion to Ps 2:7, although a few Western manuscripts (Codex Beza and the Itala) make this explicit by adding “this day I have begotten you.” The latter, however, is a scribal addition. The voice from heaven clearly reveals a unique relationship between Jesus and God and refers to Jesus’ past as well as present status with God. The voice did not confer upon Jesus a new status, so we should not see here some kind of adoptionist Christology. Rather, the voice confirmed what the readers read already in Luke 1:32–35 and 2:49, i.e., that Jesus was the Son of God before his baptism.

Robert H. Stein, Luke vol. 24 of The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 140.

 

[Hiddenthings]

@Wick Stick, there is a clear distinction between the Son of Man (marked by trial and suffering) and the Son of God with power (Romans 1:1-4). Trinitarians fail to recognize this difference, whereas the Apostles highlighted it repeatedly, expounding clearly on Christ in sinful flesh

 

[Wick Stick]

This verse is applied in Hebrews 1:5 to Christ at the time of his glorification (taking on immortality), when he was appointed as High Priest; therefore, the ‘today’ refers to his resurrection, not his birth. Compare also Hebrews 5:5; Romans 1:3–4; Isaiah 55:3; Acts 13:33–34

My view is that it refers to his coronation as King of the Jews. Psalm 2 refers to David's coronation... it makes sense to me that this would also refer to a coronation as king.

If you are referring to Luke 3:22 NET tn Or “with you I am well pleased.”

You are my Son, whom I love. It is unclear whether this is an allusion to Ps 2:7, although a few Western manuscripts (Codex Beza and the Itala) make this explicit by adding “this day I have begotten you.” The latter, however, is a scribal addition. The voice from heaven clearly reveals a unique relationship between Jesus and God and refers to Jesus’ past as well as present status with God. The voice did not confer upon Jesus a new status, so we should not see here some kind of adoptionist Christology. Rather, the voice confirmed what the readers read already in Luke 1:32–35 and 2:49, i.e., that Jesus was the Son of God before his baptism.

Robert H. Stein, Luke vol. 24 of The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 140.

Thanks for citing. That's rare here.

I read a book on textual criticism of the Bible, over 20 years ago. An interesting read. I find it notable that the author speculated that Luke originally quoted Psa 2 based on his own rules for criticism, and that this view has since gained support (been corroborated) based on ancient manuscripts, rather than critical theory.

 

[Hiddenthings]

That's what I say: it's very simple, and who is complicating things for some?

John 3:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man. (...) 31 The one who comes from above is over all others. The one who is from the earth is from the earth and speaks of things of the earth. The one who comes from heaven is over all others. (...)
... 6:33 For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” (...) 38 for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. (...) 62 What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?
... 8:23 He went on to say to them: “You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world. 24 That is why I said to you: You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins.” (...) 57 Then the Jews said to him: “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.
... 16:28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.
... 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, (...) 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

Scripture-dumper - has anyone told you?

 

[ElieG12]

I mind what Jesus said and that is what is important.

Jesus clarifies that he was with the Father before coming to the world, and also describes his return to where he was before: a coming and a returning to the same place.

John 6:62 What, therefore, should you see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
... 16:28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.
... 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, (...) 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.”

Really, how complicated must it be to accept these things he says? What would be the reason behind this denial of what Jesus himself clearly states? I seriously doubt you really mind what he said about himself.

I don't care your opinion about me. It's actually sad that you have to resort to personal attacks to hide the fact that what Jesus says in those quotes will never matter to you.

 

[Wick Stick]

@Wick Stick, there is a clear distinction between the Son of Man (marked by trial and suffering) and the Son of God with power (Romans 1:1-4). Trinitarians fail to recognize this difference, whereas the Apostles highlighted it repeatedly, expounding clearly on Christ in sinful flesh

There's certainly a difference.

"Son of man" seems to indicate the unworthiness of the person. "Son of God" is a regnal title - it belongs only to kings.

 

[Wick Stick]

I mind what Jesus said and that is what is important.

Jesus clarifies that he was with the Father before coming to the world, and also describes his return to where he was before: a coming and a returning to the same place.

John 6:62 What, therefore, should you see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
... 16:28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.
... 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, (...) 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.”

Really, how complicated must it be to accept these things he says? What would be the reason behind this denial of what Jesus himself clearly states? I seriously doubt you really mind what he said about himself.

I don't care your opinion about me. It's actually sad that you have to resort to personal attacks to hide the fact that what Jesus says in those quotes will never matter to you.

It might be helpful if you quoted some corroborating passages by different authors, rather than re-posting the same bit of John over again.

E.g. Ephesians 4, 1Peter 3:22, Acts 1:9

 

[Hiddenthings]

I mind what Jesus said and that is what is important.

Jesus clarifies that he was with the Father before coming to the world, and also describes his return to where he was before: a coming and a returning to the same place.

John 6:62 What, therefore, should you see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
... 16:28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.
... 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, (...) 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.”

Really, how complicated must it be to accept these things he says? What would be the reason behind this denial of what Jesus himself clearly states? I seriously doubt you really mind what he said about himself.

I don't care your opinion about me. It's actually sad that you have to resort to personal attacks to hide the fact that what Jesus says in those quotes will never matter to you.

You are asking too much of the record Elie!

This passage arguably proves too much for the traditional pre-existence view. Some argue that “God the Son” existed as a spiritual being in heaven prior to the incarnation. Yet in John 6:62, Jesus asks, “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?”

Did the Son of Man literally come down from heaven? Answered here John 1:1 and Jesus’ Sonship in Adoptionist thought

The context suggests otherwise. Verse 62 is part of a discourse in which Jesus compares himself to the manna God provided for Israel. That the manna was called “bread from heaven” (v.31) did not mean it literally fell from the sky across great distances, but that it originated from heaven. Likewise, Christ is from heaven in the sense of divine origin: the Holy Spirit came from heaven to effect his conception in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:35). Later, he physically ascended to heaven (Acts 1:10–11).

The passage may also allude to Jesus’ resurrection. The Greek word translated “ascend” (anabaino) is the same word used to describe Jesus rising out of the Jordan at his baptism, a clear symbol of death and resurrection. In John 6, Jesus may be posing a rhetorical question: “If people stumble over me now, what will they do when I rise from the dead?”

Good question!

 

[Hiddenthings]

@ElieG12

It's clear John 6 is presenting a struggle for you given what you think you know or understand.

The words of this chapter were a “hard saying” (v.60), and as a result, “many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” (v.66). Understanding the analogy with the manna is key to interpreting this passage correctly.

The bread “from heaven” (v.31) does not mean it was literally manufactured in heaven and fell through the atmosphere; rather, it was produced on earth by the power of God’s Holy Spirit. “From heaven” emphasizes the divine origin of the bread.

Similarly, Christ is said to have come down from heaven, not in a literal sense, but because the Holy Spirit descended upon the virgin Mary to bring about his conception (Luke 1:35). “From heaven” highlights both his divine origin as a person, his Father being God, and the divine source of his teaching. Unlike the manna, which provided only temporary sustenance, his words are “spirit and life” (v.63), offering enduring spiritual nourishment.

Firstly, do you understand the context? analogy? and faith required to believe it was God's Word and not the literal Son of Man from Heaven (which is an impossibility if you haven't already got that?)

 

[Hiddenthings]

@ElieG12 Can I ask you a simple question seeing you scripture dump and laugh off the correct interpretation.

Do you believe Jesus was a flesh Son of Man in Heaven before his birth?

 

[ElieG12]

Apply your own words to yourself:

... you impose your own notions onto the text, which has long been the common way of twisting Scripture. You’ve copied and pasted a block of text without demonstrating any understanding, should I assume you don’t grasp it and need that section interpreted? ...

It's sad. What need do you have to twist Jesus' words?
They are not to be interpreted but to be accepted.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Apply your own words to yourself:

It's sad. What need do you have to twist Jesus' words?
They are not to be interpreted but to be accepted.

Answer the question - I can see your lack the faith to believe God's Word is this powerful but try and explain the context of the Manna and apply it to the Masters words.

I'll ask again - Do you believe Jesus was a flesh Son of Man in Heaven before his birth?

 

[ElieG12]

@ElieG12 Can I ask you a simple question seeing you scripture dump and laugh off the correct interpretation.

Do you believe Jesus was a flesh Son of Man in Heaven before his birth?

Do you think the sons of God mentioned here are flesh sons of God?

Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

 

[ElieG12]

Answer the question - I can see your lack the faith to believe God's Word is this powerful but try and explain the context of the Manna and apply it to the Masters words.

I don't mind your apologetic about the manna. I am mentioning Jesus' own words. You need to accept what he said, not question it.