The Supposed Eternal Son of God

Copyright © 2007

By Steven Melvin McCalip

Website: www.kingjamesman.com

Email: kingjamesonly@yahoo.com

The reader can make copies of this article and distribute freely. Not intended for sale or profit by any user.

Jesus and the Father Are One

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. John 10:28-30

Scripture does not teach that the Father has a body and the Son has a body though some Trinitarians are following the Mormon lead on that. Jesus wasn’t saying that the Father had hands separate from Jesus hands, though Jesus did say the Father had hands. In fact, after saying that no one could pluck them out of those hands, he said he and the Father were one. This aspect of being one was related directly to their hands being one. They were the same hands. Jesus’s hands were the Father’s hands, and that’s why he said they were one. Jesus was not saying they were one in unity only. All believers are one with God. That is not blasphemy. Even the Jews understood that, for they said he uttered blasphemy, making himself God by saying he and the Father were one. Making himself God to the Jews was the same as saying he was claiming to be all of who God is, and that includes the Father. That was not a oneness of unity only. The Jews were accusing of blasphemy because Jesus was claming to be the Father’s hands and the Father himself in flesh. Do you think that the Jews were stoning him for just claiming unity with the Father, or rather would they be much more upset at him claiming he was the Father by saying that he and the Father are one and the same? The latter has to be true. All believers are in union with the Father and one with him, but by saying you and the Father are one and the same is a whole other story.

The Father Must Die

Before any son can inherit anything, his father must die. This simple truth is stated in Hebrews 9 (“For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator”)

If the Trinitarian says that all three of the persons of the Godhead testated or gave the Old Testament, then all three had to die (remember, “there must of necessity be the death of the testator”). If Trinitarians say that only two gave the Bible, then those two had to die by necessity. If Trinitarians say that only one wrote it, then the other two didn’t give the Bible at all. How is two not giving the Bible show that they are co-equal or having the quality of God if two members don’t testate or give the Bible? Didn’t God say he gave the Bible? Didn’t the Holy Ghost give it? Didn’t the Father give it?? Then they had to die according to Hebrews 9. There is no getting around this requirement unless you take the Bible away from two members of the trinity and say they had nothing to do with testating it. The Trinitarians are in a catch 22 of significant proportion. They have to admit that all three supposed persons testated or gave the scripture. If they don’t, they make them less than God. That being the case, it is without question that these testators had to die, but only one died. Because only one testated it-Jesus Christ.

Definition of the phrase “The Son of God”

by the Word of God:

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Here we are given the scriptural definition of the phrase “The Son of God.” God doesn’t leave it to man’s own words, his creeds. traditions, or lexicons to determine what this all-important phrase “Son of God” means. Don’t you think that, of all definitions, God must have given us this one himself so that we could not make it up ourselves?? Do you think he leaves the most important definition we could have up to our own whims or theological surmisings? All definitions of the Son of God must include this: “that holy thing which shall be born of thee” by “the power of the Highest.” Because the power of the Highest causes conception and produces a child, God uses the word “therefore” to show us the reason why it is called the Son of God, because it was born in time, not eternally a Son. Otherwise, you have the eternal Son of God becoming the Son of God again. The Son became a Son. What they won’t tell you is what they teach by strong implication also, and that is that the Son had a Son, the Son gave birth to a Son. That would make the Father a grandfather. See how ridiculous this all gets? No, the Father had a Son and therefore became a Son.

How was the Son Equal With God?

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Here we see another aspect of the definition of the Son of God. We need to think about his clearly. John writes that Jesus said “God was his Father.” It is easy to overlook something here. John wasn’t making the point that God was Jesus’ father like he is everyone’s father. He wasn’t saying that God was Jesus’ father like he is every believer’s spiritual Father. No, not at all. The Jews wouldn’t seek to kill him if that is all that was meant, or they would have to kill every believer who could claim the same exact thing. Jesus was claiming that God was his physical Father and produced his birth, AND THIS WAS WHAT JOHN SAID MADE JESUS EQUAL WITH GOD. The Jews didn’t say this directly. John did by the Holy Ghost. PLEASE RE-READ THAT. If Jesus was already the Son of God in eternity, then he was already equal with God according to Trinitarians. John said he was “making himself equal with God” which tells us he wasn’t equal already. Jesus never claimed he was equal before he was born. He never said he was eternally equal with the Father like all Trinitarians teach. The only time the word equal is used with Jesus is referring to the time of his birth onward. Equality is never used of Jesus before his birth. We will see this proven again in Philippians chapter two in my article “How Jesus Became Equal with God.”

God said he had no equal before the manifestation in flesh:

Isaiah 40:25

To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

God is proclaiming rather boldly that he has no equal and dares anyone to answer him that he does. Didn’t God have an equal?? Could you as a trinitarian answer him with yes? (According to you, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are eternally co-equal and existed at that time). You are put in a position to have to call God a liar. You say God did have an equal, and that was his Son and Holy Ghost according to Trinitarians. God refutes this and said he (before Jesus was born) had no equal, with the Son or Holy Ghost) This totally refutes a co-equal, eternal Son and co-equal Holy Ghost. God said himself he had no equal at that time. If God said he had no equal, then that means God had no equal to anything, including himself. Where does God make an exception to this? Where does he say that his own equality doesn’t count? Where does he say that he’s not speaking of his co-equal partners? That is the talk of you and all Trinitarians who are in another major catch 22. You have a controversy with God. If he had an equal to himself, he could not say truthfully that he had no equal. That would be a lie. Jesus became equal at the time of his birth. You cannot just say that this verse means that God had no equal with any other gods. That is ignoring the fact that he does have an equal according to Trinitarians. The whole Trinitarian belief is based on the fact that God has an equal before he became a man. Trinitarians would have to answer God’s question “To whom shall I be equal” with the answer of “You are equal to the Son and H.G.”

Isaiah 46:5

To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

How dare the Trinitarians answer that he did have an equal when God is obviously teaching he doesn’t. Do you seriously think that God asks questions like this if the answer implicates him as a liar? Again, Trinitarians say he did have an equal at that time. God said he didn’t. Who are you going to believe? God asks this same question as he did in Isaiah 40, obviously showing the importance of stressing that he has no equals inside, outside, next to him or anywhere in the universe.

The Right Hand of God

Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. Luke 22:69-70

Here we see that another principle of the meaning of the phrase “The Son of God”. The Son of God sits on the right hand of the power of God, but notice please, that he has not always done so, for it says “shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. This matches several other scriptures that say the Son of God shall (future tense) sit on God’s right hand of power, which is the place of power, i.e, God’s throne. “Right hand” means the place of power. See the notes that follow. But keep this in mind. Hebrews 1:3 puts the whole sitting down on the right hand in the future, showing that Jesus was never on the right hand until he resurrected from the dead. Why is that important? Because it shows that there was no eternal Son of God seated on the right hand of God until after Jesus’ resurrection. That disproves an eternal Son of God. “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”. Did you see WHEN Jesus sat down on the right hand of God? The answer? -when he had purged our sins, meaning, of course, his death on Calvary. That proof alone destroys eternal sonship, for an eternal Son that is not seated on the right hand of God is no eternal Son at all. That is an eternal Son that has no place of power and is not ruling anything, for he is not seated in the throne of power. Think about that. To prove that “right hand of God” means his throne, look at these verses: Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right handof the throne of theMajesty in the heavens” (Hebrews 8:1); “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2). This proves without a doubt that the Son of God did not exist as a Son in eternity past, for he would have already been seated on the right hand of God, but scriptures say he wasn’t YET. Since this seating on the right hand of God hadn’t happened yet, the Son of God was not in the place of power on God’s throne, and this means he was not in power at all AS THE SON. He did not exist as the Son, but he did as the Father. The right hand of God is a wonderful proof that the Son of God was not eternal.

The Son Sent at Birth, not from Heaven

Jesus Sent:

Jesus was sent while he was in the flesh, not before according to this verse:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Rom. 8:3

If we read this verse the way the Trinitarians would have to read it, it would cause problems for them. For it says that God sent his Son, and it also says that God sent his Son in flesh. Since the Trinitarians say and preach that when scripture says God sent his Son, this has to mean the Son was sent from heaven, then this verse, to hold to their own logic, would have to mean that God sent his Son made of flesh from heaven. This of course is not true. Jesus was not made with flesh in heaven and then sent down. This verse says that the Son that was made of a woman and made under the law, and then was sent. Therefore, the sending occurred when he was made (born).

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, Gal. 4:4

This verse, according to Trinitarians, says that the Son of God was sanctified, then sent into the world. Was it necessary to sanctify the eternal Son of God?? Why wasn’t he already sanctified? The scriptures say that “I am thee that sanctifieth thee” so of course the eternal Son would already have to be sanctified. However, the Son of God on earth was not sanctified, so then the Son on earth had to be sanctified. But since the Trinitarians are bound to say that the Son was sent from heaven, they are also forced to say now that he was sanctified in heaven and then sent. This makes the eternal Jesus less than the Father, for he had to be sanctified before he was sent. As a man, he would have to be sanctified and that wouldn’t make him less than the Father which is my position. Your position makes the eternal Jesus have to be sanctified by the Father before he can be sent. That is inferiority.

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? John 10:36

This is just one example of how the scriptures say Jesus can be sent into the world and not mean that he came from heaven as a Son. Here we see how Jesus himself defines what it meant for him to be sent into the world. As he sent us, in the same manner the Father sent him. Did the Father send us from heaven. We did not come from heaven, and neither did the Son of God, even though Jesus said we were sent into th world the same way he was.

As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. John 17:18.

The Son of God existed only at birth, not before. Jesus existed as the spirit Jesus.

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Hebrews 1:1

If Jesus was already the Son of God for millions and billions of years, and the Father was already the Father of the Son for all those years, why did this verse say that God would be (future tense) a Father and that Jesus “shall be” (future) a Son?? Wasn’t he already a Son when God said that? According to Trinitarians, the Father was talking to the Son and saying to him that he would be a Father to him and the Son would be a son to him. Is that reasonable???

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Heb. 1:5

Here we see that Christ, the Son of God, was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but not in existence until he was manifested in these last times. Manifest means to be made known, and this is critical. Here in 1st Peter, Peter says that Christ, the Son of God, was manifest or made known only in the last times for us. Since he was made known only in the last times, then he was unknown before that. It is that simple. Since he was unknown, then it should be obvious that he did not exist as the Son, only as God the spirit (Jesus).

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Peter 1:19-21

The Term “Begotten Son” proves that Jesus was Sent From Bethlehem, not Heaven

Here we see that it is the “begotten Son” that was sent into the world, ie., the Son that was born.

In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.1 John 4:9-10

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16,18

So then, every time you see that God sent his Son, you must remember that it is his begotten Son that was sent, not just Son. Since begotten means born in the flesh, Jesus couldn’t have been begotten in heaven before coming to earth. No begotten eternal Son means no second person of the Trinity, for the Trinity must include Father, eternal Son, and Holy Ghost.

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:10 (Sent his begotten Son)

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14 (Sent his begotten Son)

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

The Son of God was begotten (born) on a certain day, not begotten in heaven and then came to earth. If God sent his begotten son, and begotten means a son that was born, then all scriptures that say that God sent his Son would mean that the sending of the Son occurred after the begetting in flesh, not before.

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13:33

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Heb. 1:5

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Psalm 2:7

Where are These in Scripture?

God is three persons and has always been three persons:

(the word persons, people, individuals, and personalities are never used of God just in case you might think thatis important)

God is a trinity

(the word trinity is never used of God)

The phrase Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

(never used in scripture)

God the Son and God the Holy Ghost is never used in scripture

 God has an eternal Son

(the phrase eternal Son is never used of God)

 God is three in one

(never used in scripture)

 God sent his eternal Son

 (Never in scripture is the eternal Son said to be sent, just begotten son)

 The eternal Son was manifest in the flesh

 (Never is this phrase found in scripture that the Son was made flesh)

 The eternal Son died for you

(not in scripture)

 The eternal Son rose for you

(not in scripture)

 God is composed of distinct persons

(not in scripture)

 Equal in substance, not in person

 (equal in substance never found in scripture)

 Co-equal with each other

(co-equal never found in scripture)

The word of God never uses symbols of God, much less triangles, interlocking circles, egg yolks, suns rays, and other idolatrous madness.

None of these verses below ask you to believe in a separate, co-equal, God or two other persons or a three person Trinity. Where are any verses telling someone to believe in all three persons?? In order to know the Father, we are told to believe in Jesus and him only. In order to know God, we are told to believe in Jesus only. It is never the other way around. We are never told to believe in the Father so we can know Jesus or believe in the Holy Ghost so we can know Jesus.

The following are just a few of the verses that say we can be saved, we can worship, and we can pray to only one member of the “Trinity”, and that member is Jesus Christ. These verses teach Jesus only for salvation, do they not? If Jesus only is good enough for salvation, why is he not good enough for all of your worship?? The only God you will see in heaven and bow down to is Jesus according to Phillipians 2 and Rev. 1. Do you need to believe in two others or worship two others? Can you worship each separately? When you worship one, are you neglecting to worship the other? If worshipping one is worshipping the other two, then why is it necessary to worship them separately? Worshipping one gets you all three anyway.

Jesus is all you need to believe to be saved according to Scripture

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.

(no belief in a Trinity, or three persons, or the Father only, or

the H.Ghost.)

He that hath the Son hath life

He that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live

I am the way, the truth, and the life.

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life;

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

So then, if one obeys all those verses above, and believes only in the Lord Jesus, why is that heresy? Are those verses teaching heresy to just believe in Jesus only? Where are the verses commanding me to believe in a Trinity or believe in three persons?

As Paul himself said, “the truth is in Jesus”