Luke 1:35

Reading

The virgin birth is the incarnation of the eternally pre-existent Son. The Spirit's role is not to create divine sonship but to bring about the incarnation — the means by which the already-existing Son takes on human nature. "Called Son of God" is not the origin of his sonship but its public manifestation in human form.

Reasoning

"Will be called" (klethesetai) in Semitic usage often means "will be recognized as" or "will be rightly known as" — compare Isaiah 9:6, where "he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God," which describes the recognition of existing attributes, not their creation. The word dio ("therefore") can introduce the reason for a declaration or manifestation without implying the thing declared did not previously exist. Consider: "The DNA test confirmed it — therefore he will be called your son." The causal connector marks the occasion of recognition, not necessarily the origin of the relationship. Luke narrates the human side of the incarnation — the mechanism by which the eternal Son enters human existence — while John 1 and Philippians 2 articulate the pre-existence that Luke's birth narrative embodies narratively. All four Gospels narrate Jesus differently; this reflects genre and authorial focus, not competing ontological claims.

Strongest counterargument

The text says the opposite of this reading. Dio ("therefore") gives the reason for the title. Sonship is caused by the miraculous conception. If Luke intended to describe the incarnation of a pre-existent being, dio is the wrong word — it creates a causal link that points to origination, not manifestation. Reading John's theology into Luke is harmonization, not exegesis.

Key scholars: Darrell Bock, I. Howard Marshall, Joseph Fitzmyer

Reading

This verse explicitly states why Jesus is called "Son of God": because the Holy Spirit brings about his conception. The title has a cause, and that cause is stated with the word dio. This is the same logic as Psalm 2:7 — "Today I have begotten you" — which Acts 13:33 applies to Jesus. Sonship is brought about by divine action, not eternally possessed.

Reasoning

Luke-Acts nowhere articulates pre-existence. Acts 2:22 calls Jesus "a man attested by God." Acts 2:36 says God "made him" Lord and Christ. Acts 10:38 says God "anointed" Jesus. The consistent pattern is divine action upon a human being, not revelation of a pre-existing divine being. James D.G. Dunn explicitly argues that Luke has no pre-existence Christology — the conception is the beginning of the Son, not his transition from one mode of existence to another. Dustin Smith emphasises the causal logic: the angel says Jesus will be called Son of God because of (dio) the Spirit's overshadowing. His divine sonship has a beginning — it is caused by the miraculous conception. The same logic appears in Psalm 2:7, cited by Paul in Acts 13:33: "Today I have begotten you." There is no pre-existence here; there is origination. Dale Tuggy presses the same point: this verse gives a reason for the title "Son of God," and that reason is the virginal conception, not eternal generation. If the Son eternally existed, why would the angel point to the conception as the reason for the title? The word dio would be misleading at best and false at worst.

Strongest counterargument

Other New Testament authors do teach pre-existence (John 1, Phil. 2:6–8, Col. 1:15–17). If the NT is to be read as a unified witness, Luke's silence on pre-existence should be supplemented by these explicit statements. Luke may simply be narrating the human side of the incarnation while assuming the divine side.

Key scholars: Anthony Buzzard, James D.G. Dunn, Sean Finnegan

Reading

Luke presents a distinctive Christology of divine appointment, not ontological deity. Jesus is conceived by the Spirit (1:35), anointed at his baptism (3:22), vindicated at the resurrection (Acts 2:36), and exalted to God's right hand (Acts 5:31). Each is a moment of divine action upon Jesus — not the unveiling of a pre-existing divine status.

Reasoning

Luke's Christology follows a consistent trajectory: God acts upon Jesus at key moments to constitute him as what he becomes. The Spirit's overshadowing at conception makes him Son; the anointing at baptism makes him Messiah; the resurrection makes him Lord. This is an "ascending" Christology — Jesus is elevated through divine action — rather than a "descending" Christology of incarnation. Both Dunn and Fitzmyer acknowledge this pattern even while differing on its implications.

Strongest counterargument

Luke may simply be narrating the human side while assuming pre-existence. The Christological trajectory of Luke-Acts may complement rather than contradict the higher Christologies of John and Paul. Silence about pre-existence is not denial of pre-existence. Additionally, Luke 10:18 ("I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning") may imply some form of pre-existent perspective.

Key scholars: James D.G. Dunn, Joseph Fitzmyer, Raymond Brown