Christ begotten – How?

Was Christ Really "Begotten"? What does it mean to be "Begotten"? How does the Church describe or define Christ as "the only BEGOTTEN SON" of God? And If Christ was truly "BEGOTTEN", then HOW (or more IMPORTANTLY "WHY?) was He actually "Begotten"? These questions are absolutely VITAL to the Christian Faith - yet many denominations (including the SDA Church) have either Failed completely to adequately answer whether or not Christ was "ACTUALLY" Begotten - OR - have "explained" it away in arguments that reduce the title of "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" into a meaningless "TITLE" and which DEFY all Biblical Testimony. I will do my best to answer the above questions, to explain "WHY" this issue is "SO IMPORTANT", and provide an explanation as to exactly "How" (or, more accurately, "WHY") Christ was "BEGOTTEN". As to the question of whether or not Christ was really "Begotten" I believe that it is extremely helpful and worthwhile to look at the "HISTORY" of this belief within the Christian Church, beginning with the Apostolic Church and continuing down to the present day. For this type of "IN DEPTH" history (along with thoughts on "WHY" this is so important) I would recommend a very scholarly work done by Terry Hill on his website (http://www.theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/Index.htm) under the "Begotten Series" which can be accessed by Clicking Here. While I find that I do Not agree with all of Terry's final conclusions (I DO believe with many of them - I believe that we may be dealing with this subject on different "Levels" and I do not in any way wish to disparage or criticise his work) I have found his studies well worth the time and effort to study and would highly recommend them for any Serious Bible Student. I will leave it up to you (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to decide exactly what makes sense to you and, ultimately, what you chose to believe. Nothing can be lost in a thorough investigation of all the facts and arguments. That having been said, I wish to state that I categorically believe that "CHRIST" WAS actually "BEGOTTEN" of the Father and that this has been the belief of all TRUE CHRISTIANS since the time of the Apostles. Since "Terry" has done such a wonderful job of documenting that "FACT" beyond any doubt, I will not attempt to duplicate it here and would simply urge you to read His study. Unfortunately, most Christians have never really considered what this belief has meant to the True Christian or HOW it effects nearly everything we believe about the Godhead and the plan of salvation. Most have simply believed what they have been "taught and have gone on ignorantly believing that which the "Church" has told them to believe. However, the fact that the "Church" has strayed from this belief (that is that Christ is TRULY the "Only Begotten Son" of God - and that this was a very REAL "Begetting"), and has all but explained it away, is NO CONVINCING ARGUMENT that this is not a TRUE Biblical Doctrine OR that it is somehow unimportant to our understanding of the Godhead or the Plan of Salvation. So let's look more deeply into this right now. The "TRINITY DOCTRINE", now espoused by the vast Majority of Christianity (including the Seventh-day Adventist Church), unfortunately completely does away with any possibility of Christ actually being the "Only BEGOTTEN Son of God" - because the Trinity Doctrine states that there have ALWAYS BEEN THREE "Co-Existent" and "Co-Eternal" Beings of the Godhead. Let's face it, if there have ALWAYS been THREE Co-existent and Co-eternal Beings of the Godhead - then the possibility of ONE of them actually being "BEGOTTEN" becomes NONSENSICAL!! How could Christ "ACTUALLY" be the only "BEGOTTEN" Son of God (as He is consistently set-forth and confirmed to be throughout the Scriptures) if all of them have ALWAYS EXISTED and ALWAYS BEEN GOD? It could not possibly be.

That is why those that embrace the Trinity Doctrine have been forced into proposing that Christ's "Begetting" is really only a "FIGURATIVE" or "METEPHORICAL" description of His taking on the "ROLE" of the "Son" (see Woodrow Whidden, The Trinity, 'Biblical objections to the trinity' page 106, 2002). In other words, Christ is NOT really the "Son" but has only taken on a "ROLE" in which He "PLAYS" the part of a Son in the plan of Salvation. Nothing could be further from the TRUTH! Yet this is just one of the many "PROBLEMS" that the "TRINITY DOCTRINE" forces us into (for more of the "Problems" that the Trinity Doctrine creates please see: PROBLEMS WITH THE TRINITY DOCTRINE I have heard this position "Preached" from Adventist Pulpits (and at prominent Adventist Theological Institutions!) - that is, that the "Three" members of the Godhead got together and "Decided" that "One" would assume the role of the "Father" and that "One" would assume the role of the "SON" and that One would assume the role of the "Holy Spirit" but that any "One" of them could have assumed a different role and could have been any one of the different parties. In other words (quoting an Prominent Adventist Pastor at Southern Adventist University in his sermon on the "Trinity" given in early 2009) "The FATHER could have been the HOLY SPIRIT, and the HOLY SPIRIT could have been the SON, and the SON could have been the FATHER". In other words, all the THREE of them were doing were assuming different ROLES and that none of this had anything to do with REALITY. It was all "PLAY-ACTING" -- Just like you see in Hollywood! The ACTOR "PLAYS a role - but it has little or nothing to do with the ACTUAL PERSON who is portraying the "ROLE" he or she is playing - or WHO that person ACTUALLY IS. Unfortunately, such a THEATRICAL HOAX could NEVER SERVE or PROVIDE ANY REAL PROPITIATION FOR SIN, PROVIDED ANY REAL SUBSTITUTION FOR THE SINNER, or ACCOMPLISH THE PLAN OF SALVATION. Period. Nothing could be further from the TRUTH! And NOTHING like this should EVER be accepted by any "Thinking", "Intelligent" or "Serious" seeker of God or follower of Christ! Please THINK about this seriously for a moment before you move on! Is the "Plan of Salvation" really based upon some kind of "THEATRICAL ROLE PLAYING" or is it based upon a VERY REAL SACRIFICE on the part of the Father and the Son?(see RH March 10, 1891; par. 2 "The great gift of salvation has been placed within our reach at an infinite cost to the FATHER and the SON." And, "at an inconceivable cost to the Son of God" ST: January 6, 1887; par. 3). What kind of "INFINTE" or "INCONCEIVABLE COST" could possibly have been incurred if ALL they were doing was "PLAYING" different Roles? It defies all reason and should be quickly dismissed by any THINKING person! Either it was REAL or it was Not. And if it were NOT REAL - then we are ALL to be pitied for having fallen for such a Farce! If you have taken the time to study your Bible, Terry's "Begotten Series", and my brief comments here; I believe that your MUST have come to the conclusion that Christ was indeed, literally, "BEGOTTEN" of the Father and that His "SONSHIP" is not "allegorical", "figurative" or "metaphorical" in nature or meaning but is "IN FACT" a "REALITY". That being the case, let's now turn to HOW Christ was actually Begotten. Ellen White has written that: "A complete offering has been made; for "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, 30th May 1895, 'Christ our complete salvation' -- emphasis mine).

[Please Note: I hope that you have read Terry's Study and that you understand that this "Begetting" in the "EXPRESS IMAGE" of the Father's person involved the "EXPRESS IMAGE" of the Father's CHARACTER and NOT an exact representation of the Father's PHYSICAL BEING! This is the BIBLICAL understanding of "Express Image" and needs to be understood before one draws any conclusions concerning Christ's "Brought-forth" nature or physical appearance.]

HOW was Christ "Begotten"?
This is really the "Crux" of the issue -- it is the point upon which all the arguments hang. For those that wish to preserve the integrity of the Trinity Doctrine it causes the most problems. For those who wish to maintain the "DIVINITY" of Christ it also presents some challenges. MANY have gone ASTRAY at this point. And I must admit that it is an area where caution is advised for we are venturing on ground where the "Finite" is trying to understand the "Infinite" -- so IF you are trying to understand "How" Christ was begotten in the SAME sense as we might understand How a human baby is "Begotten" then you are attempting the impossible because this has simply not been revealed to us (However, there is MUCH that has been revealed in regards to all this and perhaps we have simply been slow to put it all together!). Sadly though, There are a host of people and organizations out there right now who propose that "Because Christ was 'Begotten' that THIS means that Christ was "CREATED and that He had His ORIGINAL BEGINNING or His ORIGINAL EXISTENCE here. Some say that Christ was a Created Being and then "invested" with Divinity (e.g. that He was ORIGINALLY CREATED as an ANGEL but specially Favored of God). Others say that Christ was "Divine" (Begotten of the Father) but that He was "inferior" to God the Father and was really a semi-god. Still others believe that Christ was Fully God and was only "Pretending" (playing a Role) and that this "Role" constituted His "Begetting". To ALL of THIS, I must DISAGREE! I do NOT believe that the "WORD's" (Christ's) -"ORIGINAL EXISTENCE" began at the time of His "Begetting", or that His "Begetting" only constituted a change in His "ROLE" or "Office". This may sound strange but please allow me to explain. I am of the persuasion that the Gospel of JOHN offers us the MOST insight into the Character of God AND the PERSON of Christ than any other book of the Bible. Most people don't realize it but the Gospel (Good News) of John was written AFTER John was especially favored to receive the "REVELATION" of Christ! It was written AFTER John was released from the Island of Patmos when He had returned to Ephesus and was written at the very end of the 1st century A.D. -- perhaps as His last gift (or the last Revelation of the Gospel by Jesus Christ) to a Church that was heading into a great deal of error. I know that it has rarely been presented as such, but the facts of the History of the Bible certainly support this conclusion. As such, the "Gospel of John" probably provides us the most "DEFINITIVE" arguments and information about CHRIST (His Nature, Incarnation, and Purpose in the Plan of Salvation) than any other book of the Bible. Perhaps this is why it is My favorite book of the Bible! It is also interesting to note that John DEPARTED from the tradition of the other Apostles in His presentation of His Gospel. John never goes into any "Lineages" and never appeals to the "Jewish" (or Hebrew) mindset. John, in fact, actually introduces some very "WESTERN" thought into the narrative of the Gospels.

For instance, John begins his Gospel by speaking of the "WORD of God " becoming "Flesh" - something that the "Hebrew" mind would be most assuredly opposed to -- it simply was not a concept that they were willing to accept. Yet John opens his gospel in this way and then proceeds to defy traditional "Hebrew" thought by affirming and re-affirming the "Sonship" and "Divinity" of Christ (something else that the Jewish or Hebrew mindset would not accept). In fact, His whole Gospel sets its teeth against all that the HEBREW mind would be likely to accept. Such were the teachings of CHRIST while He walked and talked on this earth -- they stood EVERYTHING that the "People of God" (those especially chosen of God) on their head. His teachings absolutely DESTROYED their world of "Black and White" -- their world of clearly defined Rules and Regulations -- and, instead, drove straight to the heart of the matter. Such is John's Gospel, and for that reason I would like to take a look at it now because I believe that it will set MUCH of what WE believe (westerners -- and those of us who believe that we have EVERYTHING figured out) on its head also! Perhaps it is worth a FRESH LOOK! Perhaps we will find there MUCH MORE than any surface reading has given us. John begins his Gospel (the GOOD NEWS) by stating that: "In the BEGINNING was the WORD and the WORD was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD" (emphasis mine). Now some have made a point that in the Greek there is the "article" "THE" between the words "with" and "God" ("In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with 'THE GOD' and the Word was God") -- and they have seemed to make a big point that this indicates that the "WORD" was NOT GOD but was something "other than 'THE GOD'". This kind of reasoning eludes me since the very next words AFFIRM that the very same "WORD" spoken of as being "with ("the") God" was also GOD. In other words, how can one say that the "WORD" was NOT GOD and then affirm that the "WORD" WAS GOD at the same time? Many reputable commentaries and dictionaries say this about the article preceding "God" as contained in this commentary: ""Many times, Theós occurs with the def. art. ho, but it is not so rendered in translation because, in Eng., we never refer to God as the God, except if He is designated as belonging to someone specifically, such as the God of Abraham (Mat_22:32). In many instances when the def. art. ho occurs before Theós, God, particular reference is made to God the Father, making the distinction in the persons of the Trinity evident, e.g., in Joh_1:1, "And the Word had been [e??n, imperf. act. of eimí {G1510}] toward [prós {G4314}] the God [tón Theón]" (a.t.). The def. art. here designates "the Father." The absence of the def. art. may refer to the Triune God in His infinity, eternity and totality (Joh_1:18).[emphasis mine]." Now, several PROBLEMS are indicated in this explanation. FIRST: The "article" is present in the first use of the word Theos but NOT in the second. This might lead one to conclude that the Jehovah Witnesses are "correct" in INCLUDING a "Second" article (which is NOT in the Greek) before the last use of the word "Theos" -- that is, "that the WORD was with the God and the WORD was a God" -- which effectively makes Christ only a "demigod" and NOT God in and of Himself -- and which calls into question ALL the claims of Christ put forth by the Scriptures. SECOND: One MUST notice the reference to the "TRINITY" in this commentary. This is a HUGE "ASSUMPTION" on the part of these commentators!!! One must ask: "Who was the 'GOD' of Abraham"? In fact "WHO was the God of the Old Testament (including Adam, Abraham, Moses, the Israelites, Daniel, etc.???) Please see "Jesus - The GOD of the Old Testament" by Clicking Here. JESUS is CONSISTENTLY portrayed as the "GOD" of the Old Testament throughout the Scriptures -- so any reference to the "God of Abraham" or "Moses" or anyone else MUST refer to Christ!!! CHRIST was the one who "Created" this earth, all "principalities and powers" and who was the "Lawgiver" (see Jn. 1:1-4; Heb. 1:3,10; Col. 1:15-17; Ex. 6:1-8; Ps. 108:8; Isa. 33:22; etc.)

In fact it is said of Christ: "For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior" (Isa. 43:3 - see also 2 Sam. 22:3 & Hos. 13:4). "I, even I, am He who comforts you" (Isa. 51:12). Or; "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6). ALL these references and Titles refer to CHRIST! So when the "Commentaries" refer to the "God of Abraham" or the "God of the Old Testament" -- exactly WHAT must they be referring to except the person of CHRIST?! They seem to MISS this fact -- but if it is True (and it must be according to Scripture) then ANY type of explanation that makes CHRIST into a second-class citizen or "Created" Being who is NOT "God" or who was simply "With" God at the time of creation becomes MUTE (that is that they hold NO WEIGHT of argument!). So all such suggestions must be thrown out on the basis of Scripture AND on the basis that they ALREADY ASSUME that the "TRINITY" is "Fact" -- when it is NOT!!! Again, any argument or explanation or commentary that uses the argument that the use of the article "ho" ("The") before the title of "God" (Theos) must refer to the "FATHER" becomes VERY PROBLEMATIC and MOOT given the FACT that CHRIST is the one who was the "GOD" of Abraham, the "ROCK", the "PILLAR OF CLOUD" and the "PILLAR OF FIRE", the "ANGEL OF THE LORD" etc. who was ACTUALLY the GOD who was leading Israel and who WAS the GOD of the Old Testament (again, I would refer you to this link for further PROOF of this fact: Please Click Here. From my study of the Greek (I have taken some formal Greek but I am NO SCHOLAR in this area!) I have come to understand that the "article" is sometimes used in "proper writing (or grammar)" but is NOT necessarily meant to be used in a way so as to emphasize the next word (or title) in a way that would set that title "apart" from that which is being connected to it -- and that this is the reason that it is almost NEVER translated (or included in most Translations). In other words, it is much like "Letters" that are included in almost every language which, when "Pronounced" never receive pronunciation (such as the English word "Whether" in which the first "h" is never actually pronounced: or the final "e" in the word "peace" which is never pronounced either). I believe that it is also possible that the article "the" may be included here -- NOT in order to emphasize the word following (that is "GOD") but in order to emphasize the preceding word, "WITH" (or the "PROXIMITY" -- or perhaps even the BEING?) of/to God. In this case it would indicate an "individuality" but not necessarily a "total difference in Being". And I believe that this is supported by the continuation of the sentence which CLEARLY states that the "WORD WAS GOD (Theos)." To make the beginning of the sentence (or thought) DEFY the end of the sentence (or thought) defies all reason and would make the WHOLE STATEMENT nonsensical -- we would be saying that the "Word" was NOT really "God" yet He "WAS GOD" (Which, especially when considering the following "Creative" verses in Jn. 1:1-4 would indicate that the "Word" was indeed GOD!). No "Angel" (or any other "Created" Being) is ever spoken of as "CREATING" anything! Creation seems to be the sole prerogative of GOD alone. So whatever the reason for the use of the article "the" in John 1:1 it simply CANNOT be considered as being used in order to identify the "WORD" as some "LESSER" Being from "GOD". Even if one insists upon the inclusion of "THE God" in this sentence, one is STILL forced to acknowledge that this same "WORD" (that was "With 'the' God'") was ALSO GOD Himself (and this in NO WAY suggests that He was of any "Lesser" form or power or BEING than GOD HIMSELF). If the "WORD" WAS GOD then we must accept this as a FACT and cannot reduce it down into some kind of statement that the WORD was some type of "Lesser God" or One that "RECEIVED" His "Godhood" or "Godness" from someone else (the "Father") in His ORIGINAL state of Being.

(It CAN be said of the "BEGOTTEN" Christ - or the "Christ" that was "BROUGHT-FORTH" prior to the Creation, in a very large degree, "received" His Divinity (or "POWER") from the Father [more on this later!] but this in NO WAY lessens the "WORD'S" ORIGINAL being or power as "GOD")! I must, therefore, reject any such arguments on those grounds –

I believe that much of the answer lies, not in the use of the article "the" but, in John's use of the title "WORD". Here, in the very beginning of his Gospel John takes us back to a time BEFORE the Creation -- or to "ETERNITY" itself -- and in doing so it is very interesting to me that he uses the title "WORD" (this title can only be found in the Gospel of John). I agree with many others that John's Gospel was, indeed, meant to meet the heresy that was creeping into the Church that "Jesus" was NOT "Really" the "Literal" "Only BEGOTTEN SON of God". John stresses Jesus "SONSHIP" more than any other Bible writer and it must be remembered that John is writing this Gospel at the very end of the first century (a time when many heretical things were creeping into the Church). John seems to be wanting to set the record straight regarding Christ actually being the "only Begotten Son of God". But John does not open his Gospel by using the term "Son of God" or "Only Begotten Son" or "in the beginning was 'Jesus Christ'", or any other similar title. Instead he uses the title of "WORD". And this, I believe is quite revealing. By any account a "WORD" is an "EXPRESSION of THOUGHT but it is NOT the exact thought itself. When you or I "Speak" there is, of necessity, a "THOUGHT" that precedes any words that we may use. Our "Words" are an expression of the thought that we have had (or are having). Therefore, when I "Speak" a "Word" it must be considered an expression of my "Thought" but it is not the Thought itself. In other words, the TWO are "ONE in the sense that they are intricately related yet my "Thought" and my "Words" are NOT the IDENTICAL same thing! I believe that the same case may be made concerning "GOD". His "THOUGHTS" and His "WORD" are intimately "ONE" yet they are not identical -- they BOTH have an "INDIVIDUALITY" which can be considered separately -- or as "TWO'unigue' components of the WHOLE". In other words, the "Thought" and the "Word" can be considered as INDIVIDUAL components (or "entities") yet "ONE" of the same thing. A "Thought" without "EXPRESSION" (the "WORD") remains "unrevealed" and "unexpressed" and therefore remains without any concrete "Reality". It takes BOTH the "Thought" and the "Word" (expression) in order to make the "Thought" a REALITY worthy of consideration (obviously, an Unexpressed thought remains "unrevealed" and "Alone"). No-one can understand the "THOUGHT" without the "WORD" (even when we are "Thinking" to ourselves we do so in "Words" that convey the meaning). So, while the "THOUGHT" and the "EXPRESSION" (or "WORD") may be considered as "SEPARATE" and "INDIVIDUAL" actions -- they are BOTH "ONE in CHARACTER and PURPOSE. And THIS is what I believe that the Lord was trying to convey through John in John's statement that "The WORD was with God and the WORD was God" (Jn. 1:1). The TWO are "INSEPERABLE" (are "ONE") yet have an "INDIVIDUALITY" which can be considered "Separately". It is in this respect that I believe that John meant to describe "Christ" (in His ORIGINAL EXISTENCE as the "WORD") and in which Ellen White meant to describe Him in this quote: "He [Christ] is to the Father as a word that expresses the thought, -- as a thought made audible. Christ is the word of God. Christ said to Philip, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." His words were the echo of God's words [Thoughts]. Christ was the likeness of God, the brightness of his glory, the express image of his person." (Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, 28th June 1894, 'Grow in grace' -- emphasis mine).

God's "WORD" is an EXPRESSION of Himself (His Thought) and it "REVEALS" Who He IS (His Character and Purposes). Yet God's "WORD" is more than this (and differs from our "Words" in this respect) -- God's "WORD" is more than simply an expression of His Character and Purposes (and it is much more than merely a "Definition" of what He is) for His WORD is actually His CREATIVE ENERGY! If you read the Creation Account in Genesis you will see that "God SAID (Spoke the "WORD"), 'Let there be light'; and there was light" (Gen. 1:3). And if you continue reading you will find that "God 'SAID'" (Spoke the "WORD") over and over again and it "WAS. In other words: "God spoke and it was". God's WORD contains within itself the creative energy necessary to accomplish what He has devised (this is also why God cannot "Lie", for if He actually "Spoke" it -- it would "BE"). CHRIST IS the "WORD" of God and this is why we find HIM described as the ACTIVE AGENT in all of Creation (see Jn. 1:3; Heb. 1:1,2; Col. 1:14-17 etc.). E.J. Waggoner, in the book "Lesson on Faith" has a great deal to say on this subject of the "Creative Power of the 'WORD'" -- and I believe this has MUCH to do with the whole message of "Righteousness By Faith" message given in 1888 -- which IF we truly BELIEVED it would completely change our lives. In it Waggoner states that "All things animate and inanimate,--sun, moon, and stars, animals and men,--all are entirely dependent upon the word of God for existence" (p.39). I believe that this is an entirely truthful statement and is supported throughout the Bible and SOP. The WORD of God not only created everything -- the WORD of God also sustains everything! And that "WORD" is CHRIST!! For Christ is the "express image of His [Father's] person, and upholding all things by the WORD of His power" (Heb. 1:3). But I get ahead of myself. In order to understand how "CHRIST" became the "express image of His [Father's] person" we must go back to the PROBLEM that faced God as He considered CREATING intelligent life. This "Problem" was a very REAL problem -- for God needed a way to "COMMUNICATE" with His intelligent Creatures as well as a way of "REVEALING" Himself to them in a TANGIBLE way. In other words, God needed something more than "Sound Waves" (the "Spoken Word") in order to fully reveal WHO He was and WHAT He was like (for "God is a Spirit" Jn. 4:24). He needed a way for TANGIBLE Beings to "SEE" and "FEEL" and "TOUCH" and "EXPERIENCE" Him (not just "Hear" Him). He needed a way in which He could "INTERACT" with intelligent Beings in a SUBSTANATIVE way -in a way that would be REAL for them. And in order to do this He would need to become something that they could RELATE TO as well as something they could "UNDERSTAND" in a REAL and MEANINGFUL way. In other words, He would need to come down to THEIR LEVEL and relate to them on that Level (before He could ELAVATE their understanding of Him to a HIGHER LEVEL). He needed, in short, to become ONE "LIKE THEM" yet maintaining the integrity of His Being (He would, in short, need to put some sort of "Flesh" on Himself so that His Creation could understand Him TANGIBLY as well as INTELLECTUALLY). Also, He knew that "SIN" would eventually arise and that it would spread and envelope the entire Human Race -- and He knew that He would need a way in which to "REDEEM" them (Created "HUMAN BEINGS") when this would happen. He KNEW that He must somehow eventually become ONE with the Human Race in order to accomplish this. But "How" was He to do all this? In order to do all of this He must somehow BECOME a part of the Creation which He intended to Create. This is the way in which He could "Reveal" Himself to them in a REAL and "TANGIBLE" way AND provide a propitiation for the Human Race when it would become necessary. Could YOU, as a Man or a Woman, TRULY appreciate and KNOW what a Man or a Woman really was like if the one you were trying to comprehend was a "SPIRIT"? How could you really relate to them? How could you really interact with them? How could you really KNOW and EXPERIENCE them? How could you possibly be ONE with them? How would you "Describe" a "WOMAN" if you were never able to SEE or relate to her on a meaningful level?

How would you KNOW what a Man was actually like -- or-- RELATE to Him in a truly MEANINGFUL way unless He was in some way "Like" you? Would you be able to adequately describe or "Appreciate" WATER if the only thing you knew about it was that you had been "TOLD" that it was composed of two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen? How could you possibly appreciate or describe what the FEEL of water was really like running over your body or how it quenched your thirst or how you SAW it feed the plants you grow if you were not able to SEE and relate to it in a TANGIBLE and PHYSICAL way? These were all very real problems for GOD as He considered creating intelligent life which would exist on a very TANGIBLE plane. If HE were to be really able to relate to them -- and them to Him -- He would need to become "LIKE" them in a very real and tangible way. So the CRUX of the matter is that GOD had to BECOME something that He was NOT "Originally" (a "Spirit" see Jn. 4:24) -- that He had to become "LIKE" the Creatures He was intending to Create. How was He to do this? He most certainly could NOT TOTALLY become a "Creature" for He must maintain His existence as God (to do otherwise would mean the demise of all that has ever been for HE must "maintain" His Creation also and He could not do this if He were to TOTALLY become one of His Creations). Somehow GOD had to find a way to become something He was not (originally) AND at the same time maintain that which He was (or "IS" originally). Somehow GOD must "DIVEST" some part of Himself to become "The Creature" while at the same time maintaining, not only His CHARACTER within THIS Creature, but also maintaining the Totality of Himself. John offers us some insight into how GOD actually made all of this possible. John says:

"And the WORD became (or was "Made [KJV] flesh) and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from ("of" KJV) the Father, full of grace and truth" (Jn. 1:14). Now this being "MADE
FLESH" certainly refers to the INCARNATION -- and from the "Context" of John's narrative certainly refers to Christ's Incarnation into a Human Being through His Birth into the Human Race (and through a "Human Mother"). But I also believe that it can be substantiated that this "INCARNATION actually Began BEFORE the World was created. This can be substantiated from Proverbs 8:28-31 where Christ is clearly portrayed as being "Broughtforth from the Father PRIOR to the Creation of the Earth. In both the HEBREW and the GREEK the words: "Brought-forth" and "Begotten" carry the meaning of having been "BORN". That is: both the Hebrew and Greek words used to describe Christ's being "broughtforth" (chu^l chi^yl) and "Begotten" (gennáo?) BOTH carry the meaning of being "BORN" or "Brought into existence". This could NOT refer to Christ's ORIGINAL EXISTENCE (as the "WORD") and must refer to an EXISTENTIAL CHANGE in His existence prior to the Creation when He was Begotten, or Brought-forth, from the Father. Christ could NOT simply be assuming a "Different ROLE" here for If Christ were simply assuming a different role or position then why would the Bible writers us a term that conveys a meaning of being brought into existence (born) rather than a term that would express the idea of assuming a different position or being invested with authority - such as might be used to describe Christ being "MADE a high priest" (Heb. 5:4)? Nine times in the New Testament the word "begotten" is used in reference to Christ (the "Son") and it never carries the meaning, implicit or implied, of a new "role" or "position". It always carries a relational meaning as pertaining to existence. In other words, it always is used in the exact sense of Christ having been "born" Or "BEGOTTEN of the Father. But how can that be if He was God and has always existed with the Father?

The only way that Christ could have been "begotten" from the Father is for there to have been an existential change in the person of the "WORD" (or Christ), which occurred prior to the Creation (and was necessary for the Creation), and which involved Christ's taking on the nature of the creatures He was to create in order that He might reveal the character and essence of the "invisible" God to them in an meaningful and tangible way. In other words; GOD separated part of Himself (Part of His "own" Being) in order that it (He) might become a tangible reality for His Created Beings. That "Part" of Himself which He apparently "Cutoff" from Himself was His "WORD" (and by this I do NOT mean that the Father would now somehow be "incapable" of "SPEAKING" on His own -- only that this "PART" of Himself, which is "LIVING" and "ACTIVE" and capable of "CREATIVE POWER", would now be a DISTINCT individual known to us only as His "SON"). Now I do NOT pretend to understand or to be able to EXPLAIN exactly what took place in this transaction -- or to describe exactly HOW God did all of this (we are, after all, only the Finite trying to understand the INFINITE) however I believe that there is enough Evidence through Revelation to substantiate all of this. I also believe that if Christ (the "WORD") were to assume the "Nature" of His Created Beings then it seems quite reasonable that He could NOT have carried ALL of His Divine Attributes with Him (else He would have been the exact same Being that He was before His transformation [only with a "body"] and this would defy all logic as it would make Him the exact same Being that He was originally and yet "DIFFERENT"). One cannot be the "SAME" and yet "DIFFERENT" at the same time! Indeed, in order for the "WORD" to become "FLESH" (or to become anything else for that matter, He MUST -- of necessity -- "Give Up" part of what He originally was in order to Become that which He Became. In other words, Christ had to "Give-up" that part of Himself where with He was absolutely "ONE" with the Father (His "OWN" Prerogative and Attributes as "GOD"). This is Not to say that He was not of Divine Origin OR that He was not GOD (more on this later) -- it is only to say that He could NOT become the "Creature" (the "beginning of the Creation of God" [Rev. 3:14]) without "Giving up" something of that which was inherently His in "The Beginning". Ellen White has repeatedly said that: "The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind." (RH 7-9-1895: par. 14). If you or I were to speak of someone being "Torn" from our "bosom" we would most assuredly be talking about someone who was INTIMATELY a PART of Ourselves and NOT simply a reproduction in the sense of "CONCEPTION" or in the sense of what HUMANS would refer to as they refer to pro-creation (God did not have SEX nor did He require the union of Male and Female in order to "Beget" His Son -- and THIS is where many of the explanations that I have read and heard FAIL. Most of them require GOD to have "Copulated" with a Female member (whether they say so or not) and make GOD dependent upon all that is HUMAN in order to "Beget" His Son). I do not believe that this was either necessary nor required by GOD (again, we must remember that we are dealing with a BEING that is FAR BEYOND our comprehension and CANNOT be explained in ways that are truly HUMAN). While the HUMAN RACE was created in many ways to "Explain" the personality of God (i.e. Marriage) it was NEVER intended to FULLY explain God or the Godhead. And it was never intended to make GOD CONFORM to all the laws of Humanity!! While God has created certain LAWS to Govern His Creation -- He has NEVER submitted HIMSELF to CONFORM to all these Laws!! He is much beyond them! An example can be given concerning His "LAW -- we are told that Christ "was independent and above all law" (4T p. 120:03).

If Christ were "Above" and "Independent" of the Law of God -- then GOD HIMSELF must be "ABOVE" and "INDEPENDENT" of ALL that we might conform ourselves to and MUST, therefore, being BEYOND the CONSTRAINTS of our human reasoning. And THIS is what bothers me so much about all the other explanations regarding Christ's having been "BEGOTTEN" that I have heard or read -- they ALL seem to constrain GOD'S (the Father's) having "BEGOTTEN" His "SON" into HUMAN terms and make Him dependent upon OUR method of procreation. Are we REALLY ready to constrain God into this type of reasoning? I think not. Some have accused me of purely "SPECULATING" in this area -- but please let me explain how this is NOT SPECULATION (any more than their "Speculating" on how Christ must have been a "CREATED" Being (in Human terms) and then "Invested" with power and authority) using Deductive Reasoning (GOD HIMSELF invited us to "REASON" together (see Isa. 1:18)). First, to suggest that Christ did NOT exist "with God and as GOD" in the beginning is to deny the plain words of the Bible. Second, if Christ were merely a "Created Being" then He could simply NOT have made any kind of meaningful "ATONEMENT" for us -- "the life of an angel could not pay the debt" (Early Writings p. 150, par. 1) ---- "since the law of Jehovah is the foundation of His government in heaven as well as upon the earth, even the life of an angel could not be accepted as a sacrifice for its transgression" (Patriarchs and Prophets p. 66, Par. 4) . ----- "The angels prostrated themselves before their beloved Commander, and offered to give their lives. Jesus told them the transgression was so great that the life of an angel could not pay the debt; his life alone could be accepted by his Father as a ransom for man" (ST January 30, 1879; par. 3) ----"Adam was informed that an angel's life could not pay the debt. The law of Jehovah, the foundation of his government in Heaven and upon earth, was as sacred as its divine Author; and for this reason the life of an angel could not be accepted of God as a sacrifice for its transgression. His law was of more importance in his sight than the holy angels around his throne. The Father could not change nor abolish one precept of his law to meet man in his fallen condition. But the Son of God, who had in unison with the Father created man, could make an atonement for man acceptable to God, by giving his life a sacrifice, and bearing the wrath of his Father. As Adam's transgression had brought death and wretchedness upon the race, life and immortality would be brought to light through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, a sacrifice of such infinite value as to make a man who should avail himself of it more precious than fine gold, even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir." (ST January 30, 1879; par. 12) etc.. Now please NOTE that Christ's "LIFE could NOT simply mean His "HUMAN" life (or "SHELL") unless you are willing to accept the monstrous theory that the Father simply had to have a Pound-of-Flesh in order to rectify Man's Transgressions (something that is IMPOSSIBLE given that NO MAN or even an ANGEL could "Atone" for Man's Sin)! So Christ's "LIFE (which He chose to "Give-Up") MUST have involved a "SACRIFICE much larger than His simply dying on the Cross as a HUMAN. It MUST have involved MUCH MORE! And this is Exactly what Inspiration has told us. We are told that Christ "suffered the death which was ours (Please remember that this is the "SECOND DEATH"), that we might receive the life that was His" (DA p. 25, par. 2) and that; "Christ took upon Himself humanity, and laid down His life a sacrifice, that man, by becoming a partaker of the divine nature, might have eternal life" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 141, par. 1). We are FURTHER told that the Holy Spirit "is the life of Christ in the soul" (Bible Echo: June 17,1901; par. 6) -- and we are told that the Holy Spirit is "the soul of his life, the efficacy of his church, the light and life of the world" (RH May 19, 1904; par. 1).

The previous quotes make it CLEAR that the "LIFE" that Christ "gave up" in order that WE might receive it was the very "Soul" (or Core) of His Being (as "GOD") and that this was, in fact, "HIS HOLY SPIRIT (or His DIVINE NATURE). Christ was NOT agreeing ONLY to take on HUMANITY (as a "SHELL" while He still maintained all of His Divinity) He was agreeing to "GIVE-UP" His OWN DIVINE NATURE in order to fulfill the claims of the Divine LAW (the ATONEMENT) as well as to be able to RESTORE Man to his Original position "Made in His Own Image" -- that is, "In the Image of GOD" and as "PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE"!! "The Lord Jesus loves his people, and when they put their trust in him, depending wholly upon him, he strengthens them. He will live through them, giving them the inspiration of his sanctifying Spirit, imparting to the soul a vital transfusion of himself." (Sabbath-School Worker; February 1, 1896; par. 3). More on this in a second, but I get ahead of myself. It can further be Proved that I am not "Speculating" on Christ's "NATURE" when (or After) He was "Begotten" (all of these things can be DEDUCED through the "INSPIRED STATEMENTS we have) when we consider the events that happened just after Lucifer "Sinned" in Heaven (and was trying to persuade the rest of the Angels to follow him) and this is Crucial to our Understanding of the "SON OF GOD". We are given very explicit accounts of exactly what GOD (the Father) did when all this happened. According to the prophet: "The WORD existed as a DIVINE BEING, even as the ETERNAL Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father... The WORD was with God, and was God." (RH April 5, 1906; par. 5). BUT, at this time (AFTER Christ had been BEGOTTEN by the Father) we can see that He treated His "SON", and EXPLAINED His existence, in a much different way: "The Great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself" (SOP [1870] vol. 1, p. 17). Obviously, the "WORD" (who was once not only "with God" but "WAS GOD" had assumed a different NATURE than He once had and had BECOME one "LIKE" His creation and in NEED of GOD (The Father's) special blessing and authority. NEVER forget that He was once "EQUAL with God the Father (and was, indeed a PART of the Father)! Having once BECOME a part of the Creation that He was to create -- Christ would NOW need to be dependent upon the FATHER for His Power and Authority -- and THIS is what is being expressed in the words of inspiration when Christ is said to be "invested" with these things. In other words, CHRIST BECAME that which He was once not in order that He might accomplish that which He could NOT have accomplished had He remained GOD in "Spirit" form (that is, GOD in His original state). According to inspiration: "In the person of His only begotten Son, the God heaven (the "FATHER" as is clearly stated in the previous sentence of this quote) has condescended to stoop to our human nature." (RH November 8, 1898; par. 5,6). Please don't MISS what is being said here -- apparently the FATHER has adopted human nature in the person of His Son -- please note the following quote: "God (the FATHER) has adopted human nature in the person of His Son, and has carried the same into the highest heaven." (DA p.23; par 3). It can be clearly seen that the FATHER (GOD HIMSELF) has "adopted Human Nature" in the person of His Son -- and that this MUST have been done through the SON "Partaking" of the Father's Divine Nature through a TOTAL SUBMISSION TO HIM! This can be clearly seen once Christ adopted Human Nature Fully through His Incarnation and where, according to the Bible, He was COMPLETELY DEPENDENT upon His Father for all of His power and authority. (see Jn. 14:10; 5:30,36; 8:16 etc).

I feel that the most that can be said about Christ's "PRE-EXISTANT" nature is that He was TRULY "ONE" (or a "PART") of the Father Himself but that this Pre-Existence" also entailed an "INDIVUALITY" (He was "WITH" GOD) and that this INDIVIDUALITY is part of Christ's INDESCRIBLABLE EXISTENCE "with" the Father from all Eternity and that it is a part of what made HIS (Christ's) sacrifice BOTH His and His Father's. I also feel that to explain Christ's "PRE-EXISTENCE" as belonging ONLY to His existence PRIOR to his incarnation is very short-sighted (that is that His pre-existence ONLY belonged to His existence BETWEEEN the time of His being "Brought-Forth" and His Incarnation). Christ, at least Biblically, EXISTED before this time!!! And this is where I feel that most other explanations fail. Most other explanations make Christ a "Created Being" (whether they intend to or not) by making His existence one of having a "BEGINNING" in the truest sense of the word. Christ clearly taught that He was "Brought-Forth", or "Came Forth" from the Father. He NEVER claimed that He was "ORIGINATED" (or "CREATED") by the Father!!! Christ, in ONE SENSE, was indeed "Created" by the Father ONLY in that He was BroughtForth in ANOTHER FORM -- a "Form" which was very much UNLIKE the form He originally existed in and a form in which He had a "SOLIDITY" in which we could not understand prior to His taking this form -- a form in which was very much like the "CREATURES" He would Create and which would necessarily inherit most all of the LIMITATIONS of the Creatures He would Create. And SINCE this form was very much like that of the Creatures He was Create it can be spoken of as an ORIGINAL CREATION (see Col. 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."). In other words, Christ would be "Brought-Forth" FROM THE FATHER in a FORM that would require certain LIMITATIONS (not normally inclusive of GOD) and which would make Him (CHRIST) a "NEW-CREATION" in the sense that GOD HIMSELF was acquiring a NEW FORM. There is a LOT more that can be said about all this but suffice for this study it can be said that Christ TOOK IN A NEW FORM and that He RELIQUISHED much of what was rightfully His in terms of His rightful power and authority. He would NOW be in a position of SUBMISSION and would be dependent upon His "Father" for all His POWER and AUTHORITY (just as we are). This was probably Christ's GREASTEST SACRIFICE and much of what we have "missed". BOTH the FATHER and the SON Sacrificed MUCH in order to make all this happen (our very existence, the Plan of Redemption, etc.) and this has been MISSED and MISUNDERSTOOD by much of "CHRISTIANTITY". Anything much more than this would indeed be "speculation" (please remember that GOD Himself is MUCH BEYOND our understanding completely in "human terms") -- however, all of this DOES bring into focus and question the REAL TOPIC and that is WHY the FATHER and CHRIST would do all this? This question been answered more adequately in the two studies: Why Jesus had to Die and Holy Spirit Study. Please reference these two studies for a much more thorough study into "WHY" all this had to happen. But for this study I will post these reasons: Christ HAD to become that which he was not (that is a "CREATURE") in order that He might be a LIVING EXAMPLE of what GOD IS as well as a living example of what WE are to become. Christ HAD to take on the nature of His Creations in order that we might UNDERSTAND in a TANGIBLE way what God (the "invisible God" [Col. 1:15]) was really like. In other words; Christ had to become the VISIBLE and TANGIBLE identity of God! He had to become SOMETHING WE WOULD UNDERSTAND! He HAD to become "ONE OF US!!!". And This is perhaps one of the greatest things that all of Christianity has MISSED -that is, that Christ HAD to become one of us in a most complete and total sense.

This is why Christ's "Humanity" is one of the questions that we simply MUST answer and one of which we simply CANNOT continue to ignore. In order for Christ to become something that He was NOT ORIGINALLY -- Christ HAD to GIVE UP that part of Himself that would have "Consumed Sin" (Heb. 12:29; Duet. 4:24; MB p. 62, par. 1; etc.). In other words, GOD HIMSELF had to "CHANGE in a very meaningful and tangible way in order to accomodate the "SIN" problem and in order to exist with it. Christ HAD to become something that He was NOT originally in order for Him to act as a "MEDIATOR between God and Man. Christ HAD to become "MAN" in order to do so -and this TRANSFORMATION absolutely had to include His "Giving Up" the TOTALLITY of His DIVINE NATURE! It could be no other way! Had He REMAINED "GOD" in the Fullest sense then He would have "Consumed" all those who "Sinned" (You and I, Adam and Eve, EVERYBODY!!!) immediately. You and I would not even be having this conversation had not Christ CONDESCENDED to "STEP DOWN" from His Original Position to meet us on OUR LEVEL -- had He not condescended to lay "aside His Divinity" (Bible Echo; October 12, 1896; par. 1). All of this occurred at the time when Christ was "Brought-Forth" from the Father and when He adopted a "CREATURE" nature. So when Christ was "BEGOTTEN by the Father -- He was BEGOTTEN into a form that did NOT carry with it ALL the "Tokens of Divinity". From this point on -- Christ would be totally dependent upon His FATHER for His Power and Authority. From this point on -- Christ would serve as an EXAMPLE to ALL of His Creations as to HOW they could exist in a right relationship with God AND in how they may become "LIKE HIM" (including those who had fallen into sin). From this point on -- Christ would have to be a "PARTAKER" of the "Divine Nature" (just as you and I must). And this He did flawlessly! Praise His Name!!! It seems to me that so much of the focus that is now being centered on Christ having been "BEGOTTEN" by the Father seems to be focused (perhaps unintentionally) on the Father having simply wanting to have a "CHILD" (or Procreating!). It seems that the focus of most of the groups out there concerning the Father having "Begotten" a "Son" is that the Father simply wanted to have a "CHILD" and, unfortunately, almost all of these explanations make His "Son" into an "INFERIOR" being! But this completely MISSES the entire REASON as to WHY God (the Father) had to have a "SON" in the first place!! The bottom line is this: Christ's being "BEGOTTEN" was NOT a matter of His being "Brought into Existence" in the ORIGINAL sense -- but of His being "Brought into Existence" in a NEW FORM -- a "Form" that required the SACRIFICE of His Original Nature and which would require His adoption of a "Nature" quite INFERIOR to His original nature. Christ adopted OUR NATURE in order that He could REVEAL the Nature of GOD to His Creation in a tangible and meaningful way AND in order that He (and the Father) could accomodate and rectify the "SIN" problem when it occurred. The question as to "HOW" Christ was "BEGOTTEN" in not so important as the question as to "WHY He was begotten -and this is the question that we should be focussing on.

See the study: WHY YAHUSHUA HAD TO DIE

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful