Eternal Sonship

An example of William Branham's lazy theology is his approach to the concept of the eternal sonship of Christ.

William Branham's Position

He ridiculed the idea throughout his ministry as being a Catholic doctrine:

Not eternal Sonship, 'cause the words don't go good together. That's Catholic doctrine, but... Eternal, how could it be a Sonship and be eternal? If He's a Son, he'd had to have a beginning of time. Eternal's forever. See? So eternal Sonship, there's no such a word to make that sensible. But it was the Logos that went out of God. And there He was playing out there in space just like a child before the door. I can see Him draw the whole picture in His mind of the Kingdom and what it might be.

Want to ask you, some of you precious Catholic people who call that the eternal sonship of God. God, eternal sonship of Jesus Christ with God, how can you say such a word? I'm a dummy with a seventh-grade education, but I know better than that. The word "Son" has to have a beginning. So how can He be eternal and be a Son? Eternity has no beginning or end. So He can't be a son, an eternal son, and then have a beginning, 'cause there is no such a thing as a eternal son. A son had a beginning, so he can't be eternal. You see, He is the eternal God, not the eternal son...

A Son, as the Catholic puts it, "Eternal Son," and all the rest of the churches; the word don't even make sense. See? There cannot be Eternal, and then be a Son, 'cause a Son is something that's "begotten from." And the word Eternal, He cannot be an Eter-... He can be a Son, but He cannot be an Eternal Son. No, sir. It cannot be an Eternal Son.

However, while he states that the concept doesn't even make sense, he provides no scriptural support for his position.

He also makes repeated statements that can only be considered confused given his position as stated above:

I've always thought that Jairus was a secret believer. He believed in his heart, kind of a borderline believer. He believed in his heart that that truly was a Man of God. He believed that that was God's eternal Son, His Prophet, Priest and King...

If they've been all mixed up and their minds so confused, may they look back and take the reliable. Jesus said, "These signs shall follow them that believe." How much more reliability could we place upon anything than the Words of the eternal Son of God.

Give Him praise now, and bless His holy Name. We love Him. We praise Him. We adore Him, the matchless One, the Eternal One, the Son of the living God.

The Problem with his Reasoning

When a person uses non-Biblical reasoning in approaching an issue, they open themselves up to the very same argumentation.

This would be illustrated as follows:

William Branham believe the Father was Eternal

Grant it, immortal and eternal Father God.

We're so thankful for this, that You are a universal Father to all of us, an eternal Father.

God became, from God, to become me, to take my sin upon Him, that He might make me Him, amen, back to His great purpose of sons and daughters of God, for He is the Eternal Father.

O Eternal Father, send the Gospel Light across this city, through this coming week of convention.

How can a Father be Eternal?

Can a father be a father without a son? To use William Branham's own reasoning, how can a father be eternal? How could he be a father before he had a son? However, if the Father is eternal, then why can't the Son be eternal likewise?

The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position

While William Branham also ridicules those that rely on the Greek language for their understanding of the Bible, the plain truth is that the New Testament was originally written in Greek and, therefore, those that rely on an English translation are relying on the ability of the translators to convey the appropriate meaning of the Greek words in their context.

IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. [Isa. 9:6.] He was present originally with God.

It is critical to understand in this passage the meaning of the simple word "was" (ἤν in the Greek).

There never was a time when the Word was not. There never was a thing that did not depend on him for its existence. The verb “was” is most naturally understood of the eternal existence of the Word: “the Word continually was.”9 We should not press the tense unduly, but certainly the verb denotes neither a completed state nor a coming into being. It is appropriate to eternal, unchanging being. John is affirming that the Word existed before creation, which makes it clear that the Word was not created. It is of the utmost importance to grasp this. Others, particularly among the Jews with their emphasis on the one God as the source of all things, had thought of the Word as of excellent dignity, but as subordinate, as a created being. It is fundamental to John that the Word is not to be included among created things. “In the beginning” (with all the fullness of meaning that these words can hold) the Word “was.” “He is seen as greater than all things, greater than time, changeless as eternity” (Guthrie).

Is there such a thing as eternal sonship?

Every son has a beginning. Jesus could not be a son without being born, just as he could not be a saviour without dying. A son has no knowledge of his father's experiences, and Jesus had no understanding of God at his birth, but "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." (Luke 2:52)

Why did Jesus say "before Abraham was, I am", if he was not the eternal son?

God made Jesus "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). "Lord" refers to the word "Jehovah", which is the self-existent one. Jesus was Jehovah in flesh, born of a woman. "Christ" is the Greek word for Messiah, which means "anointed" Messiah by God. There are examples in the Bible of when God had entered flesh before, but never as the son of God. Here are two examples:

   When King Nebuchadnezzar threw three Hebrews into a furnace, he saw four "men" walking around, and declared that the fourth man was "like the Son of God" (Daniel 3:25). This man was "like" the Son of God as he was God in the flesh, but he was not the Son of God as he was not born of a woman.
   Melchizedek ate bread and drank wine with Abraham, just like Jesus had communion with his disciples (Genesis 14:18). The Bible says that Melchizedek was made "like unto the Son of God" and was without beginning or end (Hebrews 7:3). Melchizedek was also God in flesh, but he was not the Son of God as he was not born of a woman. 

When Jesus said "before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) and referred to the glory he had with the Father "before the world was" (John 17:5), he was revealing that he was the possessor of the soul and spirit of God. Jesus' body was the temple of God (John 2:19) made of a woman, but inside he was the invisible God, Jehovah, of the Old Testament. His body was irrelevant to his existence, but relevant to the process of our redemption. Those who believe are also called the temple of the living God (II Corinthians 6:16). Just as the Woman was from the flesh of Man, those who believe are from the Spirit of God, and are eternal.