Psalm 2:7, and Proverbs 8:22.185 These texts, in addition to Psalm 110:3, were put forward in The Racovian Catechism as the main texts used to prove the Son’s eternal generation.186 In his earlier exegesis, Gill did not regard Micah 5:2 was a proof of the Son’s eternal generation. Since the text refers to plural “goings,” Gill did not think generation was in view, but rather his involvement “in the everlasting counsel and covenant of peace, to secure the salvation of his people.” While the text did not prove eternal generation, it did demonstrate the Son’s eternality.187
Gill eventually became open to the idea that Micah 5:2 reveals the Son’s eternal generation, as indicated in his Exposition of the Prophets, published in 1757–
1758.188 In this Exposition, Gill confronted the Socinian interpretation which proposed that the text refers to Christ’s lineage from David or Abraham since it was from long
184 Gill, Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 154, Gill’s translation. Gill’s exegesis in A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity is nearly identical to what appears in his Exposition of Isaiah 53:8, although Gill insisted more clearly on the latter option in the Exposition. Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 5:314. Gill’s consistency on this text is also evident in The Doctrine of the Trinity, where he also did not think it spoke of the Son’s generation. Gill, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 148 [156].
Like Gill, Turretin thought Isaiah 53:8 did not refer primarily to eternal generation; he did, however, think it could be useful as a contrast to human generation: “The words of Isa. 53:8, although having another bearing, may be rightly used here—‘Who shall declare his generation?’ But only that it may be distinguished from human generation and be explained negatively rather than positively.” Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:292 [3.29.III].
185 These texts are also the three main texts used by Turretin from the Old Testament to prove eternal generation. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:294–98 [3.29.VIII–XIII]. Mastricht reflected on Psalm 2:7 as the basis for his chapter on “God the Son.” Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology, 2:539–66 [1.2.26].
186 Rees, The Racovian Catechism, 69–70. Muller, PRRD, 4:284.
187 Gill, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 148 [156].
188 John Rippon, A Brief Memoir of the Life and Writings of the Late Rev. John Gill, D. D.
(1838; repr., Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 2006), 74.
before his incarnation. This interpretation of the passage was expressed as the meaning of this text in The Racovian Catechism:
The meaning of the passage then is, that Christ should deduce the illustrious origin of his birth from a very remote antiquity—that is, from the time when God, after rejecting Saul, established a king and a regal family over his people—which was done in David; who was of Bethlehem, and was also the author of the stock and family of Christ: or, indeed, from Abraham himself, who was the first father and progenitor of the race of Israel.189
Gill did not think this idea was plausible, since the text speaks of Christ’s “goings forth”
as “from everlasting.” Nor did he think these “goings forth” referred to prophecies or promises about him, these being “only foretold and spoken of” rather than actually existing. It further could not be a reference to the decree that Christ would come, because that could be said of anyone born in Bethlehem. Finally, Gill rejected the idea that this text referred to Christ’s appearances in the Old Testament “in a human form” because they cannot be described as eternal.190
In place of these options, Gill suggested that Micah 5:2 referred to either the Son’s works of grace in the eternal covenant or to his eternal generation. According to how this text was “commonly interpreted,” it revealed that Christ “is the only-begotten of the Father, of the same nature with him, and a distinct person from him; the eternal Word that went forth from him, and was with him from eternity, and is truly God. The phrases are expressive of the eternity of his divine nature and person.” Thus, the text breaks up into two parts: “the former part of the text sets forth his human birth,” while the latter bespeaks “his divine generation.” Whereas Gill previously had difficulty applying the plural “goings forth” to the Son’s generation, he now said the plural number expressed the “excellency and ineffableness of it.”191
189 Rees, The Racovian Catechism, 70–71.
190 Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 6:574. Turretin also refuted the arguments appealing to David and the eternal decree. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:297 [3.29.XIII].
191 Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 6:574. Mastricht also refers to “two goings,” referring to his divine and human generation. Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology, 2:547
Gill reminded the readers of his Body of Doctrinal Divinity that he did not think this text was a proof of eternal generation in his earlier The Doctrine of the Trinity,
“though this has been, and still is, insisted on by great and good men as a proof of it.” He sympathetically noted that some thought it referred to the Son’s “mission in time,” or his
“coming into the world” to take on a human nature. He again noted that the plural
“goings forth” seem inconsistent with a single act of generation, and that generation “is an act of the Father,” whereas this text seems to be referring to “acts of the Son.” For these reasons, Gill suggested that it could, then, be a reference to the Son’s eternal work as Mediator. Since Gill had already proven that Christ should be considered Son prior to his work as Mediator, Gill could claim this text spoke to his eternal Sonship: “these words are a full proof of the eternal existence of Christ; or otherwise these things could not be predicated of him and his existence so early, under the relation and character of the Son of God, and that previous to his goings forth in a mediatorial way; as before proved.”
Gill then asserted that eternal generation was the foundation of all the Son’s goings forth, appealing to the distinction between the Son’s human and divine birth, the idea of
generation from natural philosophy, and the meaning of the Hebrew word אעי:
Yet, after all, I see not but that the divine generation of Christ may be included in those goings forth; and be the first and principal, and the foundation of the rest;
since the contrast in the text is between the Deity and humanity of Christ; or, between his two births and sonships, divine and human; and the phrase of going forth, suits very well with the modern notion of generation, before observed; and the word אעי is frequently used of generation, Gen xlvi. 26. Isa xi.i. and xlviii. 1, 19.
and, indeed, in the very text itself.192
Gill thus admitted to having a change of mind from his earlier work on the Trinity and now considered Micah 5:2 as biblical proof of the Son’s eternal generation from the Father.
[1.2.26.VII]. Turretin thought this distinguished between his human birth and divine generation. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:297 [3.29.XIII].
192 Gill, Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 154.
Psalm 2:7. Gill consistently interpreted Psalm 2:7 as a proof of eternal