“It is only if the Son of God amazingly transitions from humiliation to exaltation that we can graciously transition from God’s just and holy wrath on us for our sin to his love toward us as his adopted children. In other words, we are sons of God by grace whereas Christ is God’s Son by nature and by redemptive accomplishment.”

Adoptionism is an early Christian heresy regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ. This false teaching advanced the view that God the Father came upon an already-existing man called Jesus of Nazareth and adopted him as his “son” after the fact of his birth and maturation (perhaps adopting him at his baptism and departing before his crucifixion). It is almost as if the Father stumbled upon Jesus while looking for someone else. Such heretical teaching hardly squares with the biblical evidence on any level. However, the heresy of adoptionism does not mean that Jesus was not adopted in any sense. Our adoption as sons of God depends upon the adoption of Jesus in its legitimate, fully biblical sense. I do not intend to say everything that can be said about the adoption of Jesus Christ nor our adoption. But take it as axiomatic that our salvation rides on the reality of Christ’s adoption properly defined and understood.

I would like us to consider two significant passages of Scripture that provide fodder for our consideration. The first is Psalm 2. While the whole psalm is relevant to understanding the prophetic foreshadowing of the coming Messiah, it is verse 7 that is particularly germane: “I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” If this ultimately relates to Jesus Christ when did God “beget” him? Is this a reference to the Son’s eternal generation or what we call the intra-trinitarian relations between the Father, Son, and Spirit? This is possible. Many in the history of the church have advocated just such an interpretation. And certainly we ought to affirm the eternal generation of the Son. There is no doubt about the truthfulness of that doctrine.

However, John Calvin in his commentary on this verse reminds us that there is an alternative and more adequate, and therefore more attractive, option. Before we get to Calvin’s observation we ought to notice something about Jesus Christ in the biblical treatment of his person and work. The New Testament’s witness to Christ runs along two distinct, yet inseparable tracks. The Son of God is considered from two vantage points: from the vantage point of his eternal existence as God the Son and from the vantage point of his redemptive-historical accomplishment of redemption as the well-pleasing and beloved Son of God-in-the-flesh. So as we read any passage about the Son in either the Old Testament or the New Testament we need to reckon with what aspect of the person and work of Christ is being addressed, the Son in his pre-existent divine nature alone or as the God-Man who is one person with two natures.

Read More