What is adoptionism?

“He was begotten to the divine nature at the time of his baptism in the Jordan. He was born again on the divine plane to the divine nature at his resurrection.” (The Harp of God, p. 168)

The solitary reading of "D." "This day have I begotten thee" (see Ps. 2:7, used by Paul of the Resurrection, Acts 13:33), arose out of the second century idea that Jesus became Son of God at baptism. Connected with this is the observance in the Eastern Church of the Lord's birth on "Epiphany" (6th January) as also commemorating His baptism. What is clear however, is that His baptism "marked His awakening of all that was involved in Messiahship" — a statement not weakened by the strictures of Stock (p. 58 f., see Isa. 1. 4 ff., Fairbairn, "Studies," p. 90 f.). This reading, recognized by Augustine, but supported only by some old Latin versions — not by the Syriac of Sinai; naturally suits writers such as Pfleiderer (op. cit., p. 407; cf. Harnack, "Sayings," p. 311 f.) as militating against the miraculous conception.

The first passage has been the subject of much controversy. Two ways of looking at it may occur to the mind. One is that the Lord became the Son by incarnation. The other is that He was ever the Son, and when the Son came into altered circumstances, and was found as a man among men, He was greeted from Heaven as the Son, the altered circumstances, not altering nor impairing His eternal relationship with His Father.

Christ was the Son begotten, not adopted like us. There are two senses in which Christ is Son of God. "He hath raised up Jesus again, as it is written also in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee," Acts 13:33 - "Raised up" is not resurrection. Acts 2:24, "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death" - this is resurrection.

One more testimony may for the present suffice. “Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:3-4) First look at the words—”Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” The Son of God is here declared to have been “made of the seed of David according to the flesh;” therefore He existed as the Son of God before made of the seed of David; for all will admit that it is His humanity here spoken of as made.” We grant,” say the opponents of Christ’s eternal Sonship, “that He existed before His incarnation, but not as the eternal Son of God.” How, then, did He exist, and what was His title? “The Word,” they answer, according to the declaration, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” According, then, to your own showing, the Lord Jesus Christ existed as the Word before He was made flesh. “Undoubtedly,” you reply. Now, what is the difference between the two expressions, “His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,” and The Word was made flesh”? for by parity of reasoning, if” the Word existed as “the Word” before He was “made flesh,” the Son of God existed as the Son of God before “He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” The two texts stand on precisely the same grounds. Both speak of the Deity and of the humanity of the blessed Lord and as no change can take place in His glorious Deity, we justly infer that as He was the Word in His divine nature before He was made flesh, so He was the Son of God in His divine nature before He was made of the seed of David. Do not all these scripture testimonies prove as with one unanimous voice that the Lord Jesus Christ was the only-begotten Son of God before God sent Him into the world? Sending Him into the world no more made Him God’s Son than, to speak with all reverence, my sending my son to school makes him my son.

Another error on this important point is that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead. The main prop of this view is what we read in (Acts 13:32-33) “And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God has fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You.” But the meaning of the apostle is abundantly clear from the passage already quoted (Romans 1:4) His resurrection did not make Him, but manifest Him to be the Son of God. Did not the Father, before the resurrection, twice with a voice from heaven proclaim, “This is My beloved Son” (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5) Will any man then lift up his voice against the Majesty of heaven, and say that Christ was not the Son of God before His resurrection, which He clearly was not, if the resurrection made Him such? Why, the Roman centurion, who stood at the cross, had a better faith than this when he said, “Truly this was the Son of God” (Matthew 27:54) No, the very devils themselves were forced to cry out before His sufferings and death, “You are Christ, the Son of God” (Luke 4:41) We may be sure, therefore, that none but a heretic of the deepest dye could assert that the blessed Lord was not the Son of God until made so by the resurrection.

The heavens were opened unto Him. This is a significant word which is often overlooked. For Him alone the heavens are open. No one has gone up into heaven save He who came down out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven (John 3:13). He came out of heaven. The heavens were opened unto Him and He has passed through the heavens. In Him the heavens are opened for us, and He has taken us all, who believe, into heaven, bringing many sons to glory. And now a voice is heard. It is not the voice of an Angel, but the voice of the Father. Wonderful fact, that now after He, who is eternally the Son of God, subsisting in the form of God, and who became Son of God incarnate, after He has thus taken the place in death for sinners, that the Father speaks to approve of Him. He had seen Him, His beloved Son, go down to fulfill all righteousness, and now He vindicates Him by declaring, This is My beloved Son in whom I have found My delight. This corresponds to the word in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten thee. The Lord Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God, but here in both passages we see Him as the Son of God incarnate. Never could it be said of Him as the Only begotten of the Father, This day have I begotten Thee. Equally true is it that eternally the Father's delight has been in the Son. But Romans 1:3 speaks of Him as His Son, come of David's seed according to flesh, marked out as Son of God in power, according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection of the dead Jesus Christ our Lord. He is the first begotten, and in Acts 13 we have the true application of that word, Thou art My Son -- "having raised up Jesus;" as it is also written in the second Psalm, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee" -- it is then in resurrection, by the resurrection from the dead that He is marked out Son of God.

Verse 7. The voice of the Spirit of Christ declares now the decree. In this publication of Messiah's title the believer finds the proper sanction of the countless blessings wherewith he is already blessed in Christ. For his life is the ascended Son of God (Col. 3:4). The Holy Ghost is now sent down from heaven to claim the allegiance of men to God, as the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to Him as the anointed Heir of all things. Jesus has been declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4), and the words of the present verse refer to that event. "This day have I begotten thee," is the solemn recognition by the Spirit of truth that the Man Jesus, whom God raised from the dead, is in very deed the Son of God. It is not the doctrine of Messiah's eternal. Sonship that is here expressed. Were that the meaning of the passage, the words "this day" could have no place. It is rather the justification in the Spirit, according to the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16), of Him whose title of Sonship had first been disallowed and dishonoured in the flesh.

I doubt not the Lord is called "the Son of God" in different respects. He is so called as being born of the Virgin (Luke 1:35). He is such by divine decree, as in resurrection (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33). This is true, and remains true, though further revelation be made to us of His divine Sonship. He is the Son, and yet has obtained the name of Son (Heb. 1:1-3). Matthew and Mark first notice His Sonship of God at His baptism. But John goes back farther still, even to the immeasurable, unspeakable distance of eternity, and declares His Sonship "in the bosom of the Father."

I doubt not the Lord is called "the Son of God" in different respects. He is so called as being born of the Virgin (Luke 1:35). He is so by Divine decree, as in resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). This is true, and remains true, though further revelation be made to us of His divine Sonship. He is the Son, and yet has obtained the name of Son (Heb. 1:1-3). Matthew and Mark first notice His Sonship of God at His baptism. Luke goes further back and notices it at His birth. But John goes farther back still, even to the immeasurable unspeakable distance of eternity, and declares His Sonship in the bosom of the Father.

"JESUS is never called teknon but hyos. It would be derogatory to, and a denial of, His eternal glory to speak of Him as God's teknon (child). But He is Son (hyos) in more senses than one. (In the phrase, “Thy Holy Child” (Acts 4:27, 30, A.V.) pais not teknon occurs in the original, and therefore “Servant " is a more correct translation than “Child."). He is Son of God as born in time and viewed on earth in His predicted association with Israel as their Messiah and King (Psa. 2). He is determined Son of God in power by resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4). And what is more important than all, and the basis of all, He is Son of God, Only-begotten Son in the Father's bosom, entirely apart from the time of His manifestation or the results of His work of redemption, Son of the Father in His own nature and personal relationship in that eternal subsistence which is essential to the Godhead and characteristic of it. [read more...]