3826 - Michael | AdventAI

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Aug 13, 1912

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 39, No. 31.

3826 — Michael

Could Michael have been properly called "the only-begotten Son of God" except by personification before He was born of a human mother? J. W. C.

We do not understand that the expression "the only-begotten Son of God" refers to our Lord as a human being. It would seem as if John 3:16 would exclude this: "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son." The giving was not when He was born of a woman; the giving was that He might be born of woman. The giving was not when He became Michael; the giving was that He might become Michael, that He might step down, down, down, taking upon Him, first the nature of angels, next the nature of humanity; and so going clear down to the lowest step which could be taken, death, that when He ascended He might fill all things. See Eph. 4:8-10.

What is implied in that "only-begotten Son of God" we do not know. We could not understand if it were told us. That is a part of the great mystery of godliness. But just how or why He is called that we do not know. In some way, in some sense, the Father is preeminent. This is indicated in various scriptures, and yet Jesus says, "I and My Father are one." Read also 1 Cor. 15:24-28. But this only-begotten Son of God who proceeded forth and came from the Father was given, and given for sinners, given in the beginning, the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world; and true to that purpose, "when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law," that we might receive the adoption of sons. And so the only-begotten Son of God was truly Michael, just the same as He was truly Jesus.