Why is Jesus called the Only Begottten Son?

[JesusFan]

Note: Since Josh's last response to me was aggressive, condescending, and self-righteous, I am declining to engage his posts directly for the time being. But the errors in his posts are worth exposing and resolving, so I will indirectly engage his post.



Josh used a verb ("reconcile") where it looks like an adjective was needed, which caused me to question whether I understood what he is asserting. But I think he is saying that

• the person of the Son being forever the same cannot be harmonized with the claim that Jesus's existence began at the incarnation.

But this is a logical contradiction only if we treat "Jesus" and "the Son" as equivalent referents. If they are not equivalent, if the two are distinguished—as they are in my argument—then there is no contradiction: The person of the Son is eternal, while the in-the-flesh existence of that person—as Jesus of Nazareth—begins in time.

"Did Jesus's existence originate in the incarnation?" Josh asked. Yes, it did—if "Jesus" refers to that human male in first-century Jerusalem. And it does in this argument. When Joseph was thinking about divorcing Mary privately, an angel visited him and said, among other things, "The child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus." That is when the person of the Son came to exist as man. He already existed as God ("always and forever the same"). But that is when he came to exist as man.

That is simply what "incarnate" means (from the Latin in carne, to come "in the flesh"). As John wrote, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." He was not eternally flesh, but became flesh and was given the name Jesus. Where was this Jesus prior to that? He did not exist. That human male was conceived and named around 5 BCE. Again, "The person of the Son is eternal, while the in-the-flesh existence of that person—as Jesus of Nazareth—begins in time."

Josh objects that the premise is "foolishness" and "wholly unscriptural." It is neither. Philippians 2:5–11 offers no refutation. Yes, Paul used the name Jesus in reference to the pre-incarnate Son, but that doesn't mean "Jesus of Nazareth" existed prior to 5 BCE. Paul's language is rhetorical and pastoral, not metaphysical. If I were to tell you that Lady Gaga was born in 1986, we both know to whom I am referring but neither of us would interpret it as saying that was her name at birth. (Her name was Stefani Germanotta.) It is a proleptic usage of the name by which we know her, because Lady Gaga did not exist until 20 years later.

This would be a fatally weak analogy, I know, but I hope it's a helpful illustration of "proleptic usage"—for that is what we find in Paul's statement. There was no human male called Jesus of Nazareth prior to the incarnation, but the eternal Son—who would become flesh as Jesus—clearly existed eternally as God, "always and forever the same." Since that's the name by which the Son was revealed in the flesh, whom Paul was writing about, of course Paul used it—proleptically (i.e., the application of a later name to an earlier period in the same person’s existence). He used the name of the incarnate Son when speaking of the pre-incarnate Son. The person is the same; the mode of existence is different, from the Son as God (pre-incarnate glory) to Jesus as both God and man (incarnate humility).

This aligns not only with classical exegesis of Philippians 2 but also with Chalcedonian Christology, unlike the position Josh is arguing.

---

For the record, I cited the Definition of Chalcedon not to prove that the existence of Jesus began at the incarnation but to prove the Eutychian error of Josh's claim that "there are no distinctions in his two natures."




Josh is correct on that point. But has the Son ever not been Jesus? Yes. There was no Jesus until he came in the flesh. He was the Son, the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity, but not Jesus of Nazareth until "the Word became flesh" (ἐγένετο, egeneto). That is when Jesus came to be, conceived by the Spirit and given that name. We may say "Jesus was with God" using proleptic language (to identify the eternal Son by the name he bears in history), but it would be incorrect if pressed metaphysically. Before the incarnation, the Son was fully God but not man—therefore not yet Jesus of Nazareth, who was both God and man. Once the Son is incarnate and bears the name Jesus, we can speak of him by either designation—Son or Jesus—and mean the same hypostatic subject.

Seems to be trying to address wither Jesus had eternal Sonship or not, as per the scriptures

 

[JesusFan]

Note: Since Josh's last response to me was aggressive, condescending, and self-righteous, I am declining to engage his posts directly for the time being. But the errors in his posts are worth exposing and resolving, so I will indirectly engage his post.



Josh used a verb ("reconcile") where it looks like an adjective was needed, which caused me to question whether I understood what he is asserting. But I think he is saying that

• the person of the Son being forever the same cannot be harmonized with the claim that Jesus's existence began at the incarnation.

But this is a logical contradiction only if we treat "Jesus" and "the Son" as equivalent referents. If they are not equivalent, if the two are distinguished—as they are in my argument—then there is no contradiction: The person of the Son is eternal, while the in-the-flesh existence of that person—as Jesus of Nazareth—begins in time.

"Did Jesus's existence originate in the incarnation?" Josh asked. Yes, it did—if "Jesus" refers to that human male in first-century Jerusalem. And it does in this argument. When Joseph was thinking about divorcing Mary privately, an angel visited him and said, among other things, "The child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus." That is when the person of the Son came to exist as man. He already existed as God ("always and forever the same"). But that is when he came to exist as man.

That is simply what "incarnate" means (from the Latin in carne, to come "in the flesh"). As John wrote, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." He was not eternally flesh, but became flesh and was given the name Jesus. Where was this Jesus prior to that? He did not exist. That human male was conceived and named around 5 BCE. Again, "The person of the Son is eternal, while the in-the-flesh existence of that person—as Jesus of Nazareth—begins in time."

Josh objects that the premise is "foolishness" and "wholly unscriptural." It is neither. Philippians 2:5–11 offers no refutation. Yes, Paul used the name Jesus in reference to the pre-incarnate Son, but that doesn't mean "Jesus of Nazareth" existed prior to 5 BCE. Paul's language is rhetorical and pastoral, not metaphysical. If I were to tell you that Lady Gaga was born in 1986, we both know to whom I am referring but neither of us would interpret it as saying that was her name at birth. (Her name was Stefani Germanotta.) It is a proleptic usage of the name by which we know her, because Lady Gaga did not exist until 20 years later.

This would be a fatally weak analogy, I know, but I hope it's a helpful illustration of "proleptic usage"—for that is what we find in Paul's statement. There was no human male called Jesus of Nazareth prior to the incarnation, but the eternal Son—who would become flesh as Jesus—clearly existed eternally as God, "always and forever the same." Since that's the name by which the Son was revealed in the flesh, whom Paul was writing about, of course Paul used it—proleptically (i.e., the application of a later name to an earlier period in the same person’s existence). He used the name of the incarnate Son when speaking of the pre-incarnate Son. The person is the same; the mode of existence is different, from the Son as God (pre-incarnate glory) to Jesus as both God and man (incarnate humility).

This aligns not only with classical exegesis of Philippians 2 but also with Chalcedonian Christology, unlike the position Josh is arguing.

---

For the record, I cited the Definition of Chalcedon not to prove that the existence of Jesus began at the incarnation but to prove the Eutychian error of Josh's claim that "there are no distinctions in his two natures."




Josh is correct on that point. But has the Son ever not been Jesus? Yes. There was no Jesus until he came in the flesh. He was the Son, the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity, but not Jesus of Nazareth until "the Word became flesh" (ἐγένετο, egeneto). That is when Jesus came to be, conceived by the Spirit and given that name. We may say "Jesus was with God" using proleptic language (to identify the eternal Son by the name he bears in history), but it would be incorrect if pressed metaphysically. Before the incarnation, the Son was fully God but not man—therefore not yet Jesus of Nazareth, who was both God and man. Once the Son is incarnate and bears the name Jesus, we can speak of him by either designation—Son or Jesus—and mean the same hypostatic subject.

In the OT era, men and Women would encounter someone called the Angel of Yahweh, who while stated to be a messenger to them from Yahweh, also spoke as if he was also very Yahweh Himself appearing to them, and my understanding is that person was the one who would later be incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth

 

[John Bauer]

Seems to be trying to address whether Jesus had eternal Sonship or not, as per the scriptures.

I don't think so, personally. He seems to be addressing whether the Son was "Jesus of Nazareth" prior to coming in the flesh.

His answer is yes. My answer is no, and that calling the pre-incarnate Son "Jesus" is a proleptic usage of the name by which the Son was revealed in the flesh.

 

[makesends]

Both equally God, yet 2 eternal persons distinct from each other

Jesus and God the Son are not 2 distinct persons. I hope I'm reading you wrong. It can be argued that they are two distinct natures in the one person, but not that they are two distinct eternal persons.

 

[John Bauer]

Jesus and God the Son are not 2 distinct persons. I hope I'm reading you wrong. It can be argued that they are two distinct natures in the one person, but not that they are two distinct eternal persons.

Yep. God and Jesus are not two persons distinct from each other; the former is three persons, the latter is one of those persons.

 

[Eleanor]

Yep. God and Jesus are not two persons distinct from each other; the former is three persons, the latter is one of those persons.

Indeed. . .

Jesus is one person, Jesus of Nazareth, with two natures, God and man.

God is three persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, with one nature

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus and God the Son are not 2 distinct persons. I hope I'm reading you wrong. It can be argued that they are two distinct natures in the one person, but not that they are two distinct eternal persons.

The trinity is One God who within His eternal being has 3 eternal persons, so Jesus is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit , so always one God in 3 Persons blessed trinity

 

[JesusFan]

Indeed. . .

Jesus is one person, Jesus of Nazareth, with two natures, God and man.

God is three persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, with one nature

That is what I hold to God as being in the Blessed trinity

 

[JesusFan]

Yep. God and Jesus are not two persons distinct from each other; the former is three persons, the latter is one of those persons.

When I state distinct , I mean one God, as both equally are God, but 2 Persons they are not each other

 

[JesusFan]

I don't think so, personally. He seems to be addressing whether the Son was "Jesus of Nazareth" prior to coming in the flesh.

His answer is yes. My answer is no, and that calling the pre-incarnate Son "Jesus" is a proleptic usage of the name by which the Son was revealed in the flesh.

The man Jesus never existed until the Incarnation

 

[Eleanor]

When I state distinct , I mean one God, as both equally are God, but 2 Persons they are not each other

Not 2 persons, but 2 natures; i.e., divine and human, in 1 person.
The nature's are not each other, the 1 person is both (2) natures.

The second person of the Trinity is Jesus of Nazareth

 

[JesusFan]

Not 2 persons, but 2 natures; i.e., divine and human, in 1 person.
The nature's are not each other, the 1 person is both (2) natures.

The second person of the Trinity is Jesus of Nazareth

First person is the father, third is the Holy Spirit, so within one God are indeed 3 eternal disctint Persons, as have own minds, thought etc

 

[makesends]

The trinity is One God who within His eternal being has 3 eternal persons, so Jesus is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit , so always one God in 3 Persons blessed trinity

Ok. I read you wrong. Good!

 

[Eleanor]

First person is the father, third is the Holy Spirit, so within one God are indeed 3 eternal disctint Persons, as have own minds, thought etc

The Trinity is three persons in one God.

And the second person of the one God has two natures, divine and human, in that one person.

 

[Josheb]

"not robbery to be equal" is interesting as, to me, that would indicate that God and Jesus are one entire package, undivided.
It clearly indicates indivisible, not split or divided but of one entirety
Nothing taken but also, nothing added. "Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is One.

Thank you for posting that. Interesting bible verse for today

Not only that, but the Philippians 2 text stands in stark contrast to the tradition of Lucifer. Luci considered equality with God something to be grasped and it caused the removal of his power, glory, and purpose. Implicit within the statement he "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" is the premise he could have reasonably, rationally, and justly done so had he a heart to do so. Jesus' humbleness is implicitly being contrasted to Lucifer's/Satan's pride and arrogance. Luci was not God and he considered equality (correction: superiority) something to be grasped. Jesus was God and did not consider equality something to be grasped. If it were not rationally possible for equality to be considered then Jesus would have been sinning and that would have instantly precluded him from being Messiah, Lord and Savior, and the perfect sacrifice.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus was the word and Angel of the Lord before the Incarnation period.

Philippians 2 states otherwise.

Before the Incarnation, there was no man called Jesus, but that One who became Jesus was eternally God Himself, and assumed Human flesh and humanity

There was a person called Jesus prior to the incarnation and Paul calls that person Jesus in Philippians 2. Paul does not call that individual Sally or Bert or Omar or Chang or Qxtlberfrklmr. He explicitly states "Christ Jesus."

Philippians 2:5-6 (excerpted to highlight the point)
...Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God...

That is what the text actually, factually, explicitly, and simply states. Christ Jesus existed in the form of God. Paul could have used any one of the many, many names assigned to Jesus. He could have said the Son of God existed, the Son of Man existed, the suffering servant, the LORD's Lord, Emanuel, or any of Jesus' other monikers. But that is not what he wrote. He wrote the name Jesus and he did so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Philippians 2:5-7
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in the Messiah named God Saves, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Jesus was never not "God saves." Many people before and after his birth may have been named that name, but there is only one who bore that name ontologically, existentially, and teleologically.

 

[JesusFan]

Philippians 2 states otherwise.

There was a person called Jesus prior to the incarnation and Paul calls that person Jesus in Philippians 2. Paul does not call that individual Sally or Bert or Omar or Chang or Qxtlberfrklmr. He explicitly states "Christ Jesus."

Philippians 2:5-6 (excerpted to highlight the point)
...Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God...

That is what the text actually, factually, explicitly, and simply states. Christ Jesus existed in the form of God. Paul could have used any one of the many, many names assigned to Jesus. He could have said the Son of God existed, the Son of Man existed, the suffering servant, the LORD's Lord, Emanuel, or any of Jesus' other monikers. But that is not what he wrote. He wrote the name Jesus and he did so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Philippians 2:5-7
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in the Messiah named God Saves, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Jesus was never not "God saves." Many people before and after his birth may have been named that name, but there is only one who bore that name ontologically, existentially, and teleologically.

Before the Incarnation, there was the eternal word of the Father, who was Himself very God, but was not yet very man until His birth as Jesus of Nazareth happened in real space and time

 

[JesusFan]

The Trinity is three persons in one God.

And the second person of the one God has two natures, divine and human, in that one person.

Agreed, as he alone among the trinity is very god and very man, other 2 members are very God

 

[Josheb]

Josh is correct on that point.

Yep.

But has the Son ever not been Jesus? Yes. There was no Jesus until he came in the flesh.

That is incorrect.

 

[JesusFan]

Yep.

That is incorrect.

No, as per the bible , the Second person of ther godhead came to earth as Angel of yahweh, and at that time was not Jesus