This understanding is almost as difficult for trinitarians to accept as the idea of God’s oneness. However, this is not a concept unique to oneness theology. There are many dedicated trinitarians who also reject the notion of an eternal Son. In fact, it is a difficult thing for trinitarians to truly support the doctrine of the eternal Sonship from scripture. Kenneth Wuest informs us that Jesus proceeded “by eternal generation as the Son of God, from the Father in a birth that never took place because it always was” (Wuest, 1952.30). I can’t help but wonder how such theological double talk helps in any way to promote the Christian faith. In scripture we find that the begetting of the son DID in fact, take place and it took place at a particular moment in time. There is not a hint in any of the gospels of a supposed pre-existent Son or pre-incarnate Christ as a second part of the Godhead. Could this be because the idea had simply never occurred to them?
Raymond Brown, a noted Catholic theologian and certainly no foe of the doctrine of the trinity, makes the point that Matthew and Luke “show no knowledge of [Jesus] preexistence: seemingly for them the conception was the becoming (begetting) of God’s son.” (Brown, 1977.31, fa 17). This is important for us to understand because if Jesus did not preexist, there is no eternal Son, therefore no evidence that either Matthew or Luke believed in a triune God. Luke recorded the fact that Mary’s Son was to be conceived in a miraculous way, by a special divine intervention: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the highest shall over shadow thee; therefore also, that Holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God.” (Lk 1: 35). Nothing mentioned here regarding a divine “eternal Sonship,” simply the promise that her offspring would be called the Son of God, because of the miracle which God would perform in her. The miraculous conception in Mary, according to Luke, was the proximate cause of the divine Sonship of Jesus. It is “therefore” or “for that reason”--the conception by Mary through the power of God’s Holy Spirit--that Jesus was to be called the Son of God.
It is readily apparent that Luke’s view of Jesus’ Sonship is completely at variance with the traditional idea that one who already existed as both God and Son of God had entered the womb of Mary. The traditional concept of preexistence means that the conception of Jesus was the breaking off of an existence as God and the beginning of an earthly career, not the beginning of God’s Son, yet for Luke, Jesus begins to exist in the womb of Mary; “conception is causality related to divine Sonship.” (Brown, 1977, 291).
Referring to the word “therefore” in Luke 1: 35, Brown says that “it would involve a certain causality.” Jesus Sonship is derived from the miraculous conception. This he says, “is an embarrassment to many orthodox theologians because in traditional incarnational theology a conception by the Holy Spirit does not bring about God’s son,” he refers to Trinitarian theologians who “try to avoid the causal connection ‘therefore’ in Luke 1: 35 by arguing that the conception of the child does not bring the Son of God into being.” (Brown 1977. 291). What Brown has disclosed is merely the reluctance of the average Bible student to admit that scripture, in this critical matter of the origin and nature of Jesus, does not agree with what they had previously accepted as truth without careful examination. Brown is hardly alone in his views. Many Protestant theologians also speak out on this issue. Speaking of Luke 1: 35, Adam Clarke, trinitarian and author of the popular, standard reference, Clarke’s Commentary had this to say: “… the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, antiscriptural and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons: 1.) I have not been able to find any express declaration in the scriptures concerning it, 2.) If Christ is the Son of God as to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal: for Son implies Father and Father implies the idea of generation, and generation implies a time in which it was effected and time also antecedent to such generation, 3,) if Christ is the Son of God as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him. 4.) again, if this divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time, i.e., there was a period in which it did not exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord and robs him at once of his Godhead. 5.) to say that He was begotten from all eternity is in my opinion absurd, and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time. Son presupposes time, generation and Father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore, the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas.” (Clark. 1837 on Lk 1: 35).
The late Pentecostal pastor and author Finis Duke, whom we noted earlier was a dedicated trinitarian, had this to say about eternal Sonship in his popular annotated reference bible:
“Sonship with Christ always refers to humanity, not to deity. As God, he had no beginning (Micah 5: 2, Jn 1: 1-2); [He was] not begotten or he would have had a beginning as God; and he was not God’s Son. But as a man, he had a beginning, was begotten, and was God’s son (Ps 2:7, 12; Mt 1: 18-25; Luke 1: 35; Heb 1: 5, 6). In these passages it is clear that there was a certain day when God was to have a Son and the Son to have a Father. It was to be in the future from the time the Prophets spoke. If Sonship refers to deity, then his deity had a beginning on a certain day and he was not eternal. But if it refers to humanity, then all scriptures are clear and we have no man-made mystery of the so-called eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. If it refers to both deity and humanity, then when did he become God, when was he begotten, how could he have been eternal? If he had a beginning and was begotten then he was not, nor is he, an eternal God. If he was a Son of God by creation, then he is no greater than angels and other beings who had beginnings.”
Dake then includes insightfully, “multiplied problems increase and become unanswerable with Scripture if we hold to the theory of eternal Sonship, but all questions are clear when we accept the plain statements of Scripture that Sonship refers to humanity.” (Dake, 2001). What Dake fails to understand is how this completely undermines the doctrine of the trinity.
Some authors use John 3:16 to try and allege that because God “sent” the Son he therefore must have preexisted. It should be noted however, that John the Baptist was also “a man sent from God,” (Jn 1:6), yet we claim no preexistence for John. Christians are also called “Sons of the Most High,” but this does not make them eternally preexistent beings. Along with the trinitarian understanding of the baptism of Jesus, the doctrine of the eternal Son is a crucial support for the platform of trinitarian theology, but can the doctrine of the trinity stand if there is no scriptural support for “eternal generation”?
In establishing the beginning of the son, oneness believers appeal to verses like Luke 1: 35, Galatians 4: 4, Hebrew 1: 5 and others. They insist that the term “Son of God” can never be used apart from God’s incarnation. They reject the term “God the Son,” the doctrine of eternal Sonship and the doctrine of the eternal begetting. The phrase “only begotten Son” does not refer to an inexplicable, spiritual generation of the son from the Father, but to the miraculous conception of Jesus in the virgin’s womb by the Holy Spirit.
They also point to a time when the distinctive role of the Son will end, when the redemption purpose for which God manifested himself in the flesh will no longer exist. This does not imply that Christ’s immortal, glorified, human body will cease to exist, but only that the mediatorial work and reign of the Son will end. The role of the Son will be submerged back into the greatness of God, who will remain in his original role as Father, creator, and ruler of all. “Then shall the son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (I Co. 15: 20). The doctrine of the trinity cannot be sustained unless it can be shown that Jesus preexisted as the eternal Son of God before his birth. In the final analysis, rather than debating Christology in historical and philosophical terms, from the oneness perspective it is preferable to pass over the ancient Creeds and Councils and go directly to scripture. Based on scripture we can now confidently make five important affirmations regarding the doctrine of Christ:
1.) Christ is full and perfect God, the one true God incarnate
2.) Christ is full and perfect human, without sin
3.) There is a distinction between the transcendent, eternal deity, and His manifestation in the flesh as the man Christ Jesus
4.) Deity and humanity are inseparably united in Christ
5.) The genetic relationship of Christ to humanity was inherited through his mother Mary
In summary, Jesus Christ is the fullness of God dwelling as perfect humanity; God manifested himself as a perfect human being. Jesus Christ is not a mere man, demigod, a second person “in” the Godhead, a divine person temporarily stripped of some divine attributes, the transmutation of God into flesh, the manifestation of a portion of God, the animation of a human body by God, God manifesting himself as incomplete humanity or God temporarily dwelling in a separate human person. Jesus Christ is nothing less than the incarnation, the embodiment, human personification and manifestation of the one true God.