Photo Generated by Canva Magic Studio

"You don't need a Ph.D to understand the Bible." I hear this often in conversations in person and online. The assertion is that one does not need a Ph.D to understand the Bible because its message is already accessible and transparent.

In one sense, I agree. As an American, I am confident that any English speaker can pick up a copy of the Bible and will be able to read it. If we're being honest, the level of understanding when casually perusing the Bible is surface-level at best and is highly literal.

However, when people make this statement, they aren't referring to a casual reading or a surface understanding of the text. The inference is that a deeper level of understanding can be obtained by simply reading the words on the page. What is usually meant when making this statement is similar to what we find in 2 Timothy 3:16,

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (NRSVUE)

Here's the thing: This passage is actually a great example of the counterpoint that deep and scholarly study is actually needed. For example, with our 2 Tim. 3:16 passage, what scripture is being referenced? Most Christians would say, "Well, the Bible, of course!" Ok, which Bible? Or rather, whose Bible?

The collection of books that contemporary Christians know as the Bible was finalized in the 4th century. Depending on your view, some scholars say the Bible in its current form came into being in 382 CE at the Council of Rome. While others claim it wasn't until 1546 CE at the Council of Trent that our current 73-book Bible was declared the complete and authoritative scriptures.

My point is that the Bible the average English speaker holds in their hand is not the scripture referenced in 2 Timothy 3:16. Furthermore, the majority of New Testament scholars agree Titus, along with 1-2 Timothy, are not authentic Pauline letters. They are letters using Paul's pen name and were written well after the apostle Paul had died. Again, just picking up a Bible and reading won't provide you with this important context.

Here's the uncomfortable truth: When people are led to believe all we need is the Holy Spirit and our Bible, we move farther away from understanding the deep and profound truths within the scriptures. Ultimately, the Bible means whatever we want, or whatever we've been told, we create a god of our own making, made in our image.

The Question of Jesus' Eternal Sonship

I've been an Episcopalian for just about 2 years. One of the things I appreciate is how the Episcopal church strives to intertwine 2,000 years of Christendom into the reality of life in the 21st century. One of the ways it does this is through regularly reciting the creeds.

Every Sunday we recite the Nicene Creed, where the second line states:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father..."

The question I want to ask is, does the Bible clearly and explicitly teach that Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father? For the majority of Christians who have been taught they do not need the help of scholarship to understand the Bible, the answer is, of course! Yes, Jesus is the eternal Son of God. This is what the Bible teaches, plain and simple.

Indeed, some books of the Bible agree with this sentiment. However, to the surprise or even shock of some, there are also a variety of other perspectives regarding when Jesus became the Son of God.

The Sonship of Jesus in Paul's Writing

One of the most prevalent misassumptions about the Christian Bible (often referred to as the New Testament) is that the books are in order chronologically. With so much of the Book of Revelation being hijacked by 'end times' theology, it's easy to assume:

"Well, Revelation is about the end of the world, and Matthew starts with a genealogy, so I guess the New Testament starts with Jesus's birth and goes through the end of the world."

Again, a surface-level reading without historical context understandably leads readers to believe this. The truth is that the Christian Bible is not ordered chronologically. The oldest books are the letters of Paul. The gospels, Mark being the first, are some of the last books to be written.

The final letter that Paul wrote somewhere between 57-58 CE is the book of Romans. To understand Paul's view of Jesus' sonship, let's take a look at what Paul says in Romans 1:4;

" 4 and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord."

Only four verses into what many Christians consider Paul's magnum opus, he tells us that Jesus was declared the Son of God "with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead." What Paul is saying in a very Pauline way is that Jesus was adopted as God's son post-crucifixion. In Paul's theology, Jesus' resurrection and exaltation (two events that happen simultaneously in Paul's mind) conferred upon him the designation of God's son.

Some argue that Colossians 2:9 and Philippians 2:5-11 claim Paul argues for the eternal sonship of Jesus. Colossians is not an authentic letter of Paul, it is helpful in understanding the Christian communities at the time of it's writing, but it's not helpful for determining Paul's thinking. At best, Philippians 2 hints at this, but by no means makes it explicit. Furthermore, Philippians was written 1-2 years before Romans. If it was something hinted at in Philippians and Romans is Paul's longest and most detailed letter about his beliefs, we'd assume he would be explicit in Romans. Rather, the only explicit statement about Jesus's sonship is 1:4, which we've discussed above.

Well, that's different. Surely, the gospels confirm Jesus' eternal sonship.

The Sonship of Jesus in the Gospels

Based on scholarly consensus here is the timeline of when the gospels were written:

Mark (65-75 CE)
Matthew (80-90 CE)
Luke (80-90 CE)
John (90-110 CE)

Mark

Approximately 15 years after Paul wrote Romans, we get the gospel of Mark. Mark updates Paul's timeline on when Jesus became the Son of God. What Mark does is change Paul's thinking that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection and ascension (Easter) and move it to Jesus' baptism.

11 And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” Mark 1:11, (NRSVUE)

Interestingly, Mark retains some of Paul's thinking but adds more details to it. In Romans 1:4, Paul shares that Jesus was declared God by the "spirit of holiness." Mark takes this a step further and gives this Spirit a setting. In Mark, this same Spirit descends from the heavens like a dove and comes upon Jesus in a physical way.

Though changing it, Mark follows the Pauline formula closely. Mark keeps Paul's thinking that Jesus was declared God but moves it to his baptism, and the declaration was made through the work of the spirit.

For our discussion, this now makes Paul and Mark two N.T. authors where we don't find the eternal sonship of Christ. With Paul, this happens at his resurrection and ascension, while with Mark, it happens during the inauguration of Jesus' ministry at his baptism.

Matthew and Luke

Matthew takes what Paul and Mark wrote about a step further. In Matthew's account, both the baptism and resurrection point to Jesus's sonship because Jesus had been the Son of God from conception. Within the formula set by Paul, we see a declaration followed by an action of the spirit conferring Jesus as God's son.

Matthew follows this formula in Matthew 1:28 when he writes:

"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." (NRSVUE)

In Matthew, we have an angel making the declaration and the spirit's work conferring this status. Unique to Matthew is that he doesn't believe Jesus' sonship is eternal, but he does connect it to the Hebrew Bible. He does this by saying Jesus's godly origin story fulfills Isaiah 7:14.

Despite Matthew moving Jesus' sonship to his conception, it's still not eternal. Luke changes some of Matthew's details and provides more historical context but leaves Matthew's story intact.

Just to keep score, Paul does not teach or presumably even know about the idea of the eternal sonship of Jesus. Having just finished looking at the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke also do not teach this.

John

Finally comes John. As a reminder, the publication of this gospel was 60-80 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

As the author of John often does, this gospel takes a completely different approach to the life of Jesus compared to the Synoptics. When it comes to Jesus's sonship, there's no exception. For the first time in a gospel, we see Jesus's eternal sonship taught.

In John 1:1-14, the gospel author claims the eternal sonship of Jesus. Interestingly, even though John claims that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, he says nothing of a virgin birth. John, in two different places, openly says Joseph is the father of Jesus (1:45, 6:42)

Based on what's been described there are a few things we can walk away knowing. The first is that the Bible is not static but a highly dynamic book. From the late 50's CE through the early 2nd century we see how the Christian community is changing their views about Jesus and how those changes appear within our Bible. Second, without the work of scholarship, research, and deep study of the historical context of the Bible, we lose so many truths and nuances.

The reality is the Bible doesn't explicitly nor clearly teach the eternal sonship of Jesus. Rather, we are taught about Jesus and then read that back into the Bible. The eternal sonship of Christ wasn't agreed upon until the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.

When we actually do the heavy lifting of diving deeper into the Bible and not force our presuppositions on the text, we allow the book to teach and shape us as it was designed to—not as a set of doctrines, laws, or dogmatic codes to follow. At its best, the Bible is not 'God's love letter to humanity'—it's a human response to God.

As a human response to God, it has all the messiness, contradictions, and what-the-hell moments that makeup so much of the human experience. But it's also a bridge we can regularly access to experience God. We gain the most value from it when we engage it with our hearts and minds when we combine critical scholarship and our spiritual senses.

When this happens, our relationship with God ceases to be rooted in fear, punishment, doctrine, or dogma. Instead, we are free to dive deep into the lessons of our ancestors and glean from them how they related to God and, by doing so, lived transformed lives.