IFCA Meeting (June 26, 1989), Part 1

Selected Scriptures 

     A number of years ago when I was pastoring here we had Dr. MacArthur scheduled for a prophetic conference and remember sitting in my office when I got a call from him and he said, "Brother Gregory, I just was talking to my elders the other night and they said that I needed to cut back a little bit on my schedule.  Could I ask you if I could please be excused from coming for this round rock and prophetic conference?"  That's the closest I ever got to having you come here John. 

I have had the opportunity to get to know Dr. MacArthur personally on several occasions when I visited southern California.  He is a member of the IFCA, not by convenience, but by conviction.  He is one of our brothers.  He's one of our family.  He has had a very high exposure in terms of his radio ministry, his tape ministry and his writing ministry.  I would hate, personally, to have everybody picking apart everything I said.  But then again I'd be in a lot more trouble than anyone might say you are John across the country.  But because he is one of our family and because there have been part of our family who have had certain questions about certain things that Dr. MacArthur has written or said we have opted for the proper way of dealing with that kind of situation.  See we're seeking for oneness.  We're seeking for solutions not for winning of one side over another, for understanding.  And so we've invited him here today in order that you might be able to receive individual and personal answers. 

I trust today that as we listen that we'll listen with ears that are eager to hear rather than to block out.  And I pray that the Holy Spirit of God...this is my prayer...that the Holy Spirit of God will enable us to come to a clear understanding.  I don't ask you all to agree.  Heaven knows, this many independents together, we'd never agree on a lot of things.  Some one said, "If you get 3 of them together you've got 5 opinions." 

But we are asking to understand so that we might really be able to say, "I know what he believes," or, "I know what I believe."  And then we can make decisions and make them in a proper Godly way.

Dr. MacArthur is serving in the Grace Community Church in California.  This is the site of the convention next year, according to the action of the committee, in November, as we have been told.  If there is going to be any change it's going to be because we understand and not because we have reacted.  And so I've asked Dr. MacArthur to come.  We as a committee have asked him to come and he has graciously agreed to come.  He is not on trial he is here as our brother.  So, John, come and share with us.  I told him he has to come across the auditorium to get up this way.  He's gonna come and...(applause).

I think I'm glad to be here.  I'll know for sure in a little while.  The last time I stood like this before a rather large and erudite group of IFCA people was at my ordination.  I was ordained into the IFCA, having graduated at Talbot Seminary, and that was a very imposing ordination process.  And the ordination process that we now use at our church is a child of the IFCA process and, I trust, equally as thorough.  I, even to this day, remember some of the questions, like, name and date all of the post-exilic, pre-exilic and exilic Minor Prophets, which I've had tremendous occasion to use in my radio ministry through the years.  I keep it fresh, if for no other reason, the devotional value of such information.  But I was ready on that day perhaps more ready than I am today.  But I'm very glad to be here and I just want you to know it's a joy to share in fellowship with you. 

My father was, for a number of years, very involved with the IFCA.  I have maintained my interest and my passion for the things that you hold true.  And I do count myself as your brother in Christ and in terms of where we stand doctrinally.  And I want to do anything I can to clarify the things I believe the bible teaches.  I'm not gonna stand here and say there are no errors in my theology.  The problem is I don't know where they are.  If I knew where they were I'd change them and so would you, you'd change yours.  But none of us is claiming infallibility.  But over the years of teaching the word of God without a lot of presuppositions I tend to conclude whatever I believe the sort of the exegetical process yields and that's why I've arrived where I have.  Unfortunately, everything I say is spread all over the place.  It's a very serious responsibility.  Somebody said to me one time, "We're gonna record your message.  It's not that we want to hear it again we want to hold it against you when you're wrong." 

There's a sense in which that kind of overexposure does leave some questions so I certainly would want to clarify anything I possibly could.  And I'd want you to help me to better understand the word of God.  I have no personal agenda.  I want to understand God' word and all it's truth.  And I think till the day I die I trust I'll be a learner and open to whatever input can give me a better understanding.  So thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Before we begin I've asked Dr. Gregory to lead us in prayer.

Our Lord, our Father, who are God, and we want to thank You for the privilege of being able to say that You are our Father. To know Thee, to Walk with Thee.  And we pray that in these next few moments and perhaps hours that as we stand before Thee that we might remember that we stand before a God who knows the thoughts and the intents of our heart.  And we thank Thee for this because we know the heart is deceitful, above all things, and desperately wicked.  So we pray, Lord, that in these next few moments that You will give us all a desire to know the truth and not only to know it but to commit ourselves to live by it.  In Jesus name.  Amen.

And the first category would be concerning the blood of Christ.  Question number 1, Dr. MacArthur, what do you believe is the shedding of Jesus blood in the redempting process?

Let me address the question of the blood of Christ in a direct way because this is such an important issue, such a potentially volatile issue. First of all, let me say, the blood of Christ is precious.  And I would not equivocate on that.  It is precious blood.  And I believe that blood; the blood of Christ, the term blood is the chief New Testament term to describe the atonement.  I think it is a comprehensive term and I think when it is indicated in the New Testament, it is indicated as a term encompassing the atoning work.  I do not believe that the New Testament teaches that the blood of Christ, in the epistles, when it's used, simply refers to the fluid in the body of Christ. I believe that it embraces the atoning work, for we have been redeemed by the shedding of His blood, that encompasses all of the atonement. 

It is interesting to note that though Jesus shed His blood at the cross He didn't bleed to death.  It's very clear that He yielded up His life at least three hours before His heart was pierced, His side was pierced.  And when He died and there rushed forth blood it indicates that He had not bled to death.  There was plenty of blood still there, apparently, to have sustained His life.  He died, not because he bled to death, but because He yielded up His spirit.

Now, what are people teaching about the blood?  There are some teaching today that it was not human, but it was the blood of God.  And, typically, they use one obscure interpretation on one verse, Acts 20:28, which talks about the church, which has been purchased with His blood.  And they make the antecedent of His God.  That is an arbitrary use of the Greek.  The antecedent of the blood could equally be Christ in that context.  But even more importantly there is no reference in the New Testament to the blood as the blood of God ever.  Every mention of the blood connected with a personality is connected with Christ.  It is always the blood of Christ, the blood of His cross.  Never does it say the blood of God.  That is a rather new interpretation, by the way, of Acts 20:28, that I have never been able to find in any commentary.

Secondly, some are teaching today that it was eternal and incorruptible.  And they use 1 Peter 1:18, and I'm sure you're familiar with that.  They try to push the parallel there, knowing that you are not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers but with precious blood.  And so they want to say that since you are not redeemed with perishable things you were redeemed with precious blood, the precious blood must be imperishable.  But that's not the parallel. The parallel is between perishable things and precious blood.  And nothing in this text says that it is eternal and incorruptible fluid.

Others are teaching that this eternal incorruptible blood of God, following this line of thought, is now preserved forever in heaven.  In other words, it was somehow collected at the foot of the cross, carried in some kind of receptacle into the presence of God, and now occupies a place in heaven.  That particular viewpoint basically they draw from Hebrews 9, "When Christ appeared as high priest of good things to come, he entered through the greater, more perfect tabernacle not made with hands...that is to say not of this creation...and not through the blood of goats and calves but through His own blood."  They would translate the preposition there "with" His own blood, which again is an arbitrary translation and better translation is "through" as noted in the New American Standard.  He entered into the holy place through His own blood not with His own blood.  But, again, there are those who choose to identify it as "with" and say Jesus blood somehow was collected, given back to Him, and transported by Him into heaven. 

Furthermore, this new view of the blood that is becoming quite popular says that it is still being poured out on the heavenly mercy seat even today; that when a person is saved there is some kind of a pouring out and re-gathering of that blood.  I've had that conversation with a number of people who have taken issue with what I have said.  They use Hebrews 12:24, "The sprinkled blood...that statement regarding the sprinkled blood to indicate that it is constantly being sprinkled in heaven as an ongoing incessant offering for sin. 

And then they say further that the blood is never a symbol for death in the New Testament.  It always is the fluid.  In fact, there was a group of Baptists that met sometime back and they voted on that in their statement that whenever the blood of Christ is mentioned in the New Testament it is always referring to the fluid and blood is never a symbol for death.  Unfortunately they again turn to Hebrews chapter 9 to try to proof text that; verses 13 and 14, where it just says, "The blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered Himself...and so forth.  "Without blemish to God cleanse your conscience from dead works to served the Living God."  So they say it's the actual fluid that somehow cleanses you.  One person said to me, "I don't know how and I don't where and I don't know what it involves but somehow the real fluid is poured out on my sins." 

Furthermore, this view has also held that it was in the body of Christ a blood form that was not derived from Mary.  Have you heard that?  And since Jesus had no human father...I remember Dehahn used to teach that the blood of the father comes into the son or the child and the blood of the mother never does. And, thus, the sin nature was never passed onto Jesus because He had no earthly father.  My brother-in-law is the head of anesthesiology for one of the largest hospitals in Los Angeles, Cedar Sinai.  He says that is medically not true.  The blood of the mother does pass through the fetus.  It has been tracked because they can tag blood cells.  They know that as a fact.

Now where does all of this come from?  Let me give you a little bit of history.  This all comes basically from a man named J.A. Bengel, who lived from 1687 to 1752. And what we're having today is an echo of a Bengelian heresy that the church rejected in the 18^th century that held this very mystical view of the blood of Christ. First of all let me just briefly answer these things and I think we can put the whole issue to rest.  Number 1, they say it was not human blood, not human blood.  You cannot base that on Acts 20:28, that is a completely arbitrary statement, to say that because it says the church of God, which he purchased, that, therefore, the He must modify God and therefore the blood is the blood of God.  As I said before there's no biblical reference to the blood of God at all.  That is an arbitrary choice of antecedents in that passage. 

Furthermore, we know that Jesus produced His own blood like every other human being produces his own blood. The blood of a mother that passes through the fetus in the womb is minimal.  The blood of any human being is produced by that human being and any medical doctor can give you the background.  The largest single portion of whole blood is comprised of erythrocytes, or red blood cells, derived from the liver and later the bone marrow.  A smaller portion is made of white cells manufactured in lymphoid tissue, also in the bone marrow.  The red cells, as you know, sustain life and the white cells fight infection.  More portions of blood, platelets, clotting factors and immunoglobulins and albumin and those kinds of things are also produced in the liver and the lymph system and the bone marrow. The point is this, every human being, every fetus, produces/generates its own blood system, every embryo. Jesus had blood that developed in Him just like it developed in any other human being. 

I want to say at this point I reject the Apollinarian error. I reject the view of apollinaris who said that Jesus Christ was the combination of God/man, only in the sense that God entered a human body and nothing more.  I believe that Jesus was fully man, not only in body, but in personality and in nature.  He was man, 100% fully man.  And in order to be fully man, which you remember the councils affirmed that He was back as early as 381, He had to be all that a man is, not some kind of human, some bloodless human with some infused divine substance.  There are so many problems with that particular viewpoint, not the least of which is, where was this blood of God before Jesus?  Where was it floating around? Because if it was the blood of God we're gonna have to answer that question and then we're gonna have to answer the question, "How can a spirit have blood?"  Jesus said, "A spirit has not...what?...flesh and bones. 

The second thing that they say is it was eternal and incorruptible.  But nothing indicates that in the New Testament either.  The parallel, as I said, is between perishable things and precious blood. Nothing says it was imperishable or eternal.  What the atonement accomplished was eternal.  And these people who say that His blood was eternal might have to also deal with the fact that what about the rest of His bodily fluids and what about His fingernails and His...you don't even want to get into that kind of fantasy.  The bible says nothing about that.  Absolutely nothing.

Thirdly, they say it was preserved in heaven.  I pointed out that it's He entered into heaven through His blood not with His blood.  Furthermore, they say it is being poured out on a heavenly mercy seat, the sprinkled blood being continually poured out.  I just warn you against this error.  I'll tell you why.  That is nothing but Roman Catholic, Anglo Catholic theology of the perpetual offering of the blood of Christ. That is not a Protestant viewpoint.  That is heresy.  The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is not repeatable.  It cannot be repeated.  You can't have some mystical dumping of blood going on incessantly in heaven without somehow convoluting the statement, the clear statement, that "He has, by one offering perfected forever them that are sanctified."  There is no repeatable characteristic in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And, then, for people to say, "Blood is not a symbol for the atonement."  It is a symbol for the atonement.  It has to be.  It is not the fluid that can save or Jesus could have bled into a chalice, taken the thing to heaven and poured that out if it was in the fluid.  His atoning work demanded that He die. 

Now let me add at this particular point:  I do not believe for one moment that Jesus Christ could have died any other way than the way He died.  I've heard people say, "Well He could have been beaten to death, He could have been stone."  Not on your life, He had to be lifted up, that's exactly what He predicted who happen.  He had to be put upon a cross because it said that way back on the Old Testament, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."  There was no other way then that Jesus would be crucified. And He had to pour out His blood; He had to have those great wounds where blood was she because He was the fulfillment of all Old Testament sacrificial imagery.  There was no other way that He could have died than the way in which He died.  I have never said anything to the contrary, never would.  But at the same time it was not the fluid that saved us, it was the death of Christ.  See Roman Catholic theology teaches that you take a cup of wine, the priest somehow transubstantiates that into blood, you drink that blood, and it minister's saving grace.  We reject that heresy.  It is not the fluid. 

That, by the way; that strange view is elaborated by a man named Hicks in a book written in 1930 called, The Fullness of Sacrifice.  It's another Anglo-Catholic book.  We want to be very careful we're not delving into some of these things.  Now blood does refer to death. Check Kittle.  It says in there, "Blood stands for death."  That's a quote.  Alan Stibbs has written the most significant journal article on haima, which is the Greek word for blood that I've ever read.  And he says, "Blood is the symbol of sacrificial death." So wherever you see the blood of Christ it embodies the whole atoning work. And I can give you a list as long as your arm of Scriptures that indicate that.

Now all of this, I'm just trying to point out to you, indicates to me that those people who are saying, "Jesus had the blood of God," are on the one hand denying His full humanity.  Secondly, they're confusing the issue of God as a spiritual being. Those who say the blood is eternal and incorruptible and that it goes on existing forever and ever have taken that right out of the air because the bible does not teach that and what about the rest of that sinless Christ?  What is the rest of the residue of His humanness doing?  Is it still floating around somewhere?  And that it is preserved in heaven is strictly a choice of theology based upon the implication of a selected translation of a preposition.  And that it is still being poured out on the heavenly mercy seat, again, twists and perverts the single character of sacrifice. 

Finally, to say that blood is not a symbol for atonement is to confuse things. Blood is a symbol for death.  To be sure you can go all the way back to Genesis.  And when it talks about it in Genesis it says, "Whoever sheds man's...what?...blood by man shall...His blood be shed...what does that mean?  If you make somebody bleed they get to make you bleed? It means if you do what?  If you kill someone.  Blood is always been the symbol of death.  It is just a graphic way to describe death and in reference to Christ, the fullness of His atoning death. 

So I just want to affirm to you that I believe Jesus Christ was fully man and that He had the body of a man and He had the nature of humanity.  And as the councils have said throughout the history of the church they were not mixed and they were not confused, fully man/fully God.  And because He was fully man He had the blood that every man has because it's produced in Him.  And I believe that when He died on the cross He died as a sacrifice and the only way that He ever could have died, crucified.  And I believe that in being crucified He shed His literal blood and He was a literal sacrifice for the sins of the world, but that the atoning work needed more than bleeding, it required death.  And so whenever you talk about the blood of Christ you must embrace the whole sacrificial death of Christ.  Otherwise, He could have covered our sins in the garden of Gasemini and voided the cross altogether.

Okay, are there any questions from the panel?

I have just one other question.  There were several questions but you pretty well covered that in answering.

I try to.

This question had quoted you and you cleared up much of what was said.  But here is the question that was added to this.  How are you different in this issue than Bob Theim?

I'm not sure that that matters. I'm not sure what he believes about that.  The only issue would be whether it's biblical.  I certainly am very different than Bob Theim in a lot of...almost everything I can think of.  I certainly don't want to identify at that point.  You know there may be times in the past when I've said something that left something unclear.  But, you know, the man who doesn't offend with his tongue is the perfect man.  You know, there may be things that would make someone assume something like that.  Somebody asked me; in fact I get asked all the time, do I ever listen to my own tapes?  And my answer is, "Only when I want to find out what I believe."  Because I teach constantly, you know, and I have for all these years and I forget what I believe about something.  But I don't think I hold the same view as Bob Theim.  I'll leave it at that.  I'm not sure what his view is.

All right, there's a question.  Mr. Parson?

You mentioned the death comprises the atoning. The blood relates to death to the atoning work as in Leviticus 17:11.  My question is, does death only comprise the whole redemptive atoning work?  And my thought is along this line.  The death...the blood points to life, a life poured out, pointing always to the perfect Lamb of God.  Blood presents...the blood presented because the blood shed isn't enough.  The blood is presented and the blood is the life received and the blood is precious. It is life possessed. In other words, the Lord Jesus Christ went as the Lamb of God.  He is the perfect priest, the perfect sacrifice.  He perfectly satisfies God.  And my question, I guess, is when death is spoken of in your tapes or that which you...you sent us a master tape.  You may not have but it came as the official tape.  In there it is said...nothing is said of His suffering. That death would be the beginning and end of blood, blood equals death by metonymy, metonymy...metonemine...period...done.  That's my question.  Is it finished in your mind then?  In other words, would I represent you properly if I said blood equals death...a big one?

I'm not sure how to answer that, believe it or not, even though you clarified it a couple of times.  What I am saying is that the atonement for our sins necessitated a death.  It necessitated the death that Jesus died in the very way that He died and in no other way.  And what I am simply saying is that while blood does not equal death totally because the blood shedding of Christ and the sacrificial element of that was a part of the death of Christ, yet, when the New Testament writer refers to blood he is equating it with the whole atoning work, which embraces the blood and the death.  A parallel to that would be the blood of His cross.  Now there's no blood in the cross.  You also have...talking about that we've been saved by the cross of Christ. Well what does that mean?  The wood didn't save us. The wood didn't bleed for us.  But whether you're talking about the death of Christ, the blood of Christ, the cross of Christ, you are simply using terms which embrace in one graphic way or another the whole atoning work of Christ.  That's the only way I can explain it.  I don't know.

Just a point that may help:  If I was left with listening to the tape that was sent and we played that for the regional men, it would have been very difficult for us to go beyond, from the tape, beyond blood equals death period.  I think all these others...and I'm not saying you don't say them...you just did not say them.  And I think that may trigger...

Sure.  I understand that.

A great deal of reaction.

And that's the difficulty, you know, in being taped because...that's why Martin Lloyd Jones, in his book on Preachers and Preaching, said, "Those infernal tapes."  Because you can't say everything about every theological issue every time you bring it up.  So what happens is you get a point here and there.  You just kind of don't cover the full thing.  But I hope that clarifies what I believe.  I'm not necessarily asking you to believe it.  I'm not mandating that.  But I think it's consistent with Scripture and that's where I stand.

Okay, thank you.  We'll move onto the next category, which has to do with eternal _____________. And the first question:  Do you agree with this statement?  And any one of the members of the God head could have become the Son.  Please explain this in the light of Colossians 1:15 and 7.

I reject that statement.  That is modalism.  That is a form of cebalion heresy.  I do not believe in a modalistic view of the trinity.  I do not believe in the view that says any member of the Trinity at any given point in time can function in any role. I believe that the Trinity has very distinct personhood within the Trinity and that they had very distinct roles, which were laid out in eternity past and that those roles are absolutely inviolable.  I do not believe any member of the Trinity could have become the Son. That is modalism, and that I believe to be wrong.

Question number 2:  If the roles of the three persons were determined at some point previous to the incarnation and the first person of the Trinity was the head of the Second person of the Trinity, the present Father/Son relationship must have existed.  Please explain or use a different term if the role/relationship always existed?

Read that statement again and I'll stop you at a certain point.

If the roles of the three persons were determined at some point previous to the incarnation...

That is correct.  That's a correct statement.

Okay.  And the first person of the Trinity was the head of the Second person of the trinity...

That is not necessarily a correct statement.  There's nothing in the Old Testament that says that the first person of the Trinity was the head of the second person.  That is an assumption. That brings the point to where the issue really lies.  The only time you have God ever spoken of as the head is in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 and who is he the head of?  Well no, "Man is the head of the woman, Christ is the head of the man, and God is the head of Christ."  That is an incarnational term.  But when you go to the Old Testament you're not gonna find anything in the Old Testament anywhere that says that the first person in the Trinity is the head of the second person.  In fact, you find the very opposite because Jesus says in John 17, "Father, receive me back to the glory which I had with You before the world began."  And he uses that little Greek phrase, pros ton fa on, face-to-face.  And Philippians 2 says, "He thought it not robbery or something to be grasped at to be...what?...equal with God."  There is nothing in the Old Testament, prior to the incarnation, that ever puts the second member of Trinity in a subservient role to the first member of the Trinity.

I'm not gonna grant that premise because if I grant that premise I'll get caught in the next statement. And that's the very point we want you to understand, is that Christ entered into this world incarnationally as a servant to the first member of the Trinity.  And that is...the prophet says that, "He will come as the suffering servant.  He will come as the Son of the Father."  But such designation is not clearly distinguished in the Old Testament prior to the incarnation, where the role of subservient comes, as He becomes the servants, becomes the Son, becomes Mashiah, the Christ.  Then he takes that role in his incarnation and his work.

The latter part of that question, Dr. MacArthur, said the present Father/Son relationship must have existed. And it says, "Please explain why we use a different term if the role relationship always existed?"

Okay.  I don't believe the role/relationship always did exist in experience.  Now...let me give you this too.  I just jotted down a few notes while I was circling Philadelphia here.  Let me...I think I can help you with this.  Let me just give you several points.  Number 1:  Jesus Christ is eternal God.  He is the second person of the Trinity.  That's how we identify Him. It doesn't say that in the bible.  You understand that?  It doesn't say Trinity in the bible. But we understand He'd be the second person of the Trinity.  He is eternally God, a very God.  He is never, in essence, inferior to God. He is never, in essence, less than God. Okay.

Second point:  He is referred to in the Old Testament as the Lord.  "The Lord said unto My Lord."  He is referred to as the angel of the Lord, the angel of Jehovah.  And when he is referred to as the angel of the Lord he functioned as a heavenly messenger, as angels do.  Did He not?  In other words, when the pre-incarnate Son, as you want to call Him or the pre-incarnate Christ, the second member of the Trinity appeared in the Old Testament.  He appeared when sent to earth as a messenger in what form?  The angel of the Lord, okay.

Third point I want to make.  He never is called Son in the Old Testament, except prophetically.  That is a very important issue because I'm only trying to deal with exegesis here and with the text.  He's not called Son except in anticipation.  So what we can say is this:  the term Son was His by expectation but became His by experience in the incarnation. And then was affirmed in exaltation, for He became a Son through His resurrection.  In what sense?  In the sense that He inherited it and that's what a Son is. 

Two things identify Him as a Son; now keep this in mind, when the bible says God Father and Christ Son that is an accommodation to our mind right?  That's to describe for us some kind of intimate sharing of nature.  Now listen carefully to this.  The Father Son picture is to describe for us a sharing of nature.  It certainly works in the incarnation because what is the big issue with regard to Jesus Christ?  What was the big agenda?  To tell the world that He was Whom?  God, one in nature with God.  That was not something that was debated when the Trinity was in heaven. Nobody was debating that. So it wasn't important to call the first member Father, the second member Son because when They were existing before the world began or before the incarnation in that Trinitarian existence there was no debate about who the second member was or who the third member was.  But as soon as the second member becomes incarnate then the burden of proof is on that second member to prove to the world that He's what?  That He's God.  Therein lies the terminology Father Son, which better than any other term speaks of common essence, common nature. 

Now there are some Old Testament passages that perhaps I can allude to.  Proverbs chapter 30 and verse 4, here the words of Agur the son of Jakeh and so forth, it says, "Surely I am more stupid than any man, I do not have the understanding of a man.  Neither have I learned wisdom, nor do I have the knowledge of the Holy One, of God.  Who has ascended into heaven and descended?  Who has gathered the wind in His fists?  Who has wrapped the waters in His garments?  Who has established all the ends of the earth?  What is His name or His son's name?  Surely you know!" And what's he saying?  I believe this is a very general statement.  He is saying simply, do you know anybody who knows the things God knows? Do you know anybody who can do the things God does?  If you do, what's His name and what's His son's name.  I want to go meet em.  I don't think necessarily that that is even a reference to God and His son.  Proverbs 30 verse 4. 

So apart from that particular statement you have no other reference in the Old Testament regarding Jesus as Son except what is prophetic. Isaiah 9:6, right? "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given."  That's prophetic.  And he was given in incarnation, prophetic.  And you have the same thing in Psalm 2:7, "Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.  Ask of Me, I'll give Thee nations as Thy inheritance and the very ends of the earth as Thy possession."  Now the question comes, what day did God have in mind?  "Thou art my Son, Today I have begotten Thee." The fact that God said today takes the Sonship of Christ out of eternity and puts it into what?  Are there any today's in eternity?  That's a time designation.  That's a time designation.

I believe that there is sense in which you could say Christ was always the Son in anticipation. But He didn't enter the role of Sonship, which was a role of submission, until His incarnation. And He didn't enjoy the benefits of Sonship until His resurrection and He inherited the nations that God had promised to Him. The designation Son refers to two things:  submission and inheritance. When did Christ submit?  When did He submit?  Philippians 2, "He thought it not robbery to hold onto His equality with God, to grasp it, but He submitted."  That's Sonship.  So the first move of Sonship was in the incarnation, the birth of Christ.  The second one, according to what the bible says, very clearly was through His resurrection He became a Son.  In what sense?  That's inheritance. The second feature of Sonship is inheritance.  When did that happen?  In His resurrection. 

With that in mind look at Romans chapter 1 and see how clear the New Testament is.  It says, in Romans 1:3, "That the gospel is all about the Son, who was born...or literally ghen-nay-mah...who became a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power by...what?...resurrection."  So He was born a Son, an incarnation, and took the role of submission, that's a son's role.  And then he was declared a Son through resurrection and took the inheritance. The Father glorified Him in the resurrection, took Him back to glory, sat Him at His right hand and has given unto Him the kingdoms of the world and some day He will take His inheritance and make it His own.