Does God beget ?

 Israfil,

       Even in the Old Testament some rather mysterious things about God are seen. For example, in the book of Zechariah we see the Jehovah of hosts sending the Jehovah of hosts. This amounts mysteriously to God sending God. This passage reveals Jehovah as both the Sender and the Sent One in Zechariah 2:8-11:

 "For thus says Jehovah of hosts, After the glory He sent Me against the nations who plunder you; for he who touches you touches the pupil of His eye. (v.8)

For I am now waving My hand over them, and they will be plunder for those who served them; and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me. (v.9)

Give a ringing shout and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for now I am coming, and I will dwell in your midst, declares Jehovah. (v.10)

And many nations will join themselves to Jehovah in that day and will become My people; and I will dwell in your midst; and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me to you." (v.11)

 The speaker in verse 8 introduces Himself as God - "For thus says Jehovah of hosts ...,".  Yet Jehovah of hosts says that after the glory He has been sent by Jehovah to the nations which plunder Israel - "After the glory He has sent Me against the nations who plunder you ...". Those nations have touched the apple of God's eye.

Then in the next verse, on behalf of the plundered Israel, God says that He will wave His mighty hand over them - "For I am now waving My hand over them, and they will be a plunder..." But the strangest thing happens. The waver of the mighty hand is Jehovah God the speaker. Yet as a result Israel will know that the One waving the divine hand has been sent by Jehovah! " ... and they will be for plunder for those who serve them; and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me."

 Jehovah is not only the speaker and the waver of the mighty hand. Jehovah of hosts is the one who is sent by Jehovah of hosts.  We see God as the Sent One and God simultaneously as the Sender OF the Sent One.

In verse 10 Jehovah declares that He comes to dwell in the midst of Zion - "for now I am coming, and I will dwell in your midst, declares Jehovah".  But as a result of Jehovah dwelling in the midst of Zion they shall know that Jehovah God has sent Him. "And many nations will join themselves to Jehovah in that day and will become My people, and I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me to you."

  Therefore we see Jehovah as the Sent One and the Sender of the Sent One at the same time. This indicates something beyond normal limitation with the nature of God even in the Old Testament.

 Now we come to the Son on earth being sent by His Father. Though He is sent by the Father the Father comes with Him and in Him:

"And He Who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him," (John 8:29)

 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, but if not believe Me because of the works themselves." (John 14:11)

The Lord Jesus would prefer that we simply believe that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. But if this seems too much for us He wants us to believe it because of the works themselves He does which are clearly the works of God. And His words are the working of the Father within Him:

 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works." (John 14:10)

 I am so glad that God has had mercy on me to have the ability to believe that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.

 We should not scoff at the Triune God. To see and to know Christ is a divine revelation which God must grant to every man and woman:

 "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those who are perishing, in whom the god of this age (the Devil) has blinded the thoughts of the unbelievers that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your slave for Jesus' sake. Because the God who said, Out of darkness light shall shine, is the One who shined in our hearts to illuminate the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." ( 2 Cor. 4:3-6). 

  The spiritual battle is to remove the blinding veil over the hearts of the unbelievers in the Son of God that the light of revelation might freely shine into them to see Christ - the expression of the glory of God united with man.

   But not only to see that Christ is God the Son but to be brought into the divine life and share His experience of union with God - not as an object of worship, but as an extension and expansion of God mingled with humanity. This was the prayer of the Son:

"That they all may be one; even as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me. And now the glory whoch You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me." (John 17:21-23).

 The eternal purpose of God is to have sons who share His life and nature. This is what He cannot fail to obtain through the salvation of the Son of the Father. This prayer above cannot go unanswered. The New Jerusalem in eternity is the fulfillment of this request of the Son to the Father that believers be brought into oneness with the Triune God.

 The term "son of God"  in spiritual sense is not objectionable. We need not say that God needed sons or all men are sons of God. We can easily say that all are creatures of God. Why to use a confusing term "son"?? The relation of son and father is known to every one. But in the case of Jesus, that relation is absent. Jesus is not the son of God. So it is better not to use the son terminology.

 Because that will be used to make a god out of a mere man. That terminology becomes all the more objectionable. God does not need anything. He does not need a son. A God in need is not a God indeed.

minuteman wrote:    I forgot to mention the love affair. God loved Jesus. Yes. Very good. That can be as an example of love from the father. But it all boils down to reality whether Jesus is the son or not. If he is not a literal son (as he is not) then that love affair should also be not  used to make Jesus the son of God. God does not beget in physical sense. Begetting in spiritual sense should always carry the word spiritual with it otherwise common people get misled. When christians say Jesus is the son of God then they should say that Jesus is a spiritual son of God. When they say that Jesus is the begotten or the only begotten son of God then they should also say that Jesus is the spiritually begotten son of God. That will cause less confusion. Thanks.

Minuteman this is even more confusing than the Christian interpretation of the concept of Sonship. So you are saying Jesus is the "spiritually begotten Son of God?" How does God beget spiritually?

The concept of Trinity (in relation to the current subject):

The following is perhaps the best description of the Trinity and how God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all equal (thus would not amount to subordinate qualities within God) I suggest the thread posters read it:

"The traditional account of identity, derived from Boethius, holds that things may be either generically, specifically, or numerically the same or different. Abelard accepts this account but finds it not sufficiently fine-grained to deal with the Trinity. The core of his theory of identity, as presented in his Theologia christiana, consists in four additional modes of identity: (1) essential sameness and difference; (2) numerical sameness and difference, which Abelard ties closely to essential sameness and difference, allowing a more fine-grained distinction than Boethius could allow; (3) sameness and difference in definition; (4) sameness and difference in property (in proprietate). Roughly, Abelard's account of essential and numerical sameness is intended to improve upon the identity-conditions for things in the world given by the traditional account; his account of sameness in definition is meant to supply identity-conditions for the features of things; and his account of sameness in property opens up the possibility of there being different identity-conditions for a single thing having several distinct features."

Now for the payoff. Abelard deploys his theory of identity to shed light on the Trinity as follows. The three Persons are essentially the same as one another, since they are all the same concrete thing (namely God). They differ from one another in definition, since what it is to be the Father is not the same as what it is to be the Son or what it is to be the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are numerically different from one another, for otherwise they would not be three, but they are not numerically different from God: if they were there would be three gods, not one. Moreover, each Person has properties that uniquely apply to it � unbegotten to the Father, begotten to the Son, and proceeding to the Holy Spirit � as well as properties that are distinctive of it, such as power for the Father, wisdom for the Son, and goodness for the Holy Spirit. The unique properties are unmixed in Abelard's technical sense, for the Persons differ from one another in their unique properties, and such properties do not apply to God; the distinctive properties are mixed, though, in that God is characterized by each (the powerful God is the wise God is the good God). Further than that, Abelard holds, human reason cannot go; but reason validates the analysis (strictly speaking only a �likeness� or analogy) as far as it can go.

From Stanford Encyclopedia http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abelard/#7