Tag: Hebrews 1:3

Posted on

Eternal Generation of the Son – Is it Biblical?

‘Begotten’ implies Subordination.

According to the Bible, the Son was begotten by the Father (E.g., John 1:14, 18; 3:16).

In support of this concept, the Bible also describes Him as the “Son of God,” “born of God” (1 John 5:18), and as living “because of the Father” (John 6:57). 

This principle is also indirectly supported by statements that the Father gave the Son His being and authority. For example, the Father gave the Son:

        • “To have life in Himself” (John 5:26);
        • “All the fullness of Deity” (Col 2:9; 1:19);
        • “All authority … in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18); and
        • To be worshiped (Phil 2:9-10; Heb 1:6).

That the Father generated the Son implies that the Son is dependent on and subordinate to the Father. [Show More]

Eternal Generation

The theory of Eternal Generation explains “begotten” and “generated” in a way that describes the Son as co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. Hodge defined Eternal Generation as follows:

    1. “An eternal, personal act of the Father,
    2. Wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will,
    3. He generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead,
    4. Without division, alienation, or change,
    5. So that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person,
    6. And eternally continues,
    7. Not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.”
      (Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p. 182.)

[Show More]

Eternal Generation implies equality.

Co-eternal

Firstly, while ‘begetting’ implies that the Son came into existence at a point in time in the past, ‘Eternal Generation’ proposes that the ‘begetting’ is ‘eternal’, meaning it has no beginning or end. Consequently, the Son is co-eternal with the Father. [Show More]

Co-equal

Secondly, if the Father begat the Son “by choice of will,” then the Father empowers or upholds the Son, meaning that the Son depends on the Father for His existence and power and, therefore, is subordinate to the Father.

To explain the Son as NOT dependent on the Father for His existence, ‘Eternal Generation’ teaches that the Father generates the Son, not because of the Father’s decision or will, but “by necessity of nature.” In other words, generating the Son is an essential part of what God is. In this way, ‘Eternal Generation’ argues that the Son is co-equal with the Father. [Show More]

Key part of the Trinity doctrine

‘Eternal Generation’ is therefore a key element of the Trinity doctrine. [Show More]

Objections to Eternal Generation

(1) Never-ending generation is not Biblical.

Hodge’s definition says it is an “eternal” act that “eternally continues.” In other words, it is a process without beginning or end. But there is no evidence in the Bible to say that ‘begotten’ is a never-ending process. In the Bible, the Son was begotten in the eternity past. [Show More]

(2) It is not the Father’s act.

In the Bible, the Father begat the Son. But Hodge’s definition of ‘Eternal Generation’ states that the Son was generated “by necessity of nature, not by choice of will.” In the Trinity doctrine, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share one single “nature.” Therefore, in ‘Eternal Generation’, the Son’s begetting is not the act of a Person. It is not the Father specifically who generates the Son, but God; the Trinity.

To explain this slightly differently, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are “not three parts of God” (Theopedia) but each is the entire God Almighty. So, how can the Son be excluded from generating Himself if He is the entire God? It can only be done by a verbal denial, but verbal denials are meaningless if the substance of the matter contradicts such denials.

(3) It is not the generation of a Person but a mode.

By saying that the Father has begotten the Son, the Bible implies that the Father has generated the entire being of the Son.

In contrast, since the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single substance and Being, the Father does not generate the Son’s substance or mind. In ‘Eternal Generation’, as per Hodge’s definition above, the Father only “generates the person of the Son” (not the essence) “by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead.”

However, in the Trinity doctrine, the Persons are not “persons” in the ordinary sense of the term because each ‘Person’ does not have His own ‘body’ or mind or will. The three ‘Persons’ are one single Being and share a single mind. (See Article) Therefore, in ‘Eternal Generation’, neither the substance nor the mind or will of the Son is generated. What is generated is not a Person with His own mind and will, as the Bible envisages, but merely a mode of being. [Show More]

 

Scriptural Support

GotQuestions lists the verses below in support of ‘Eternal Generation’ but not one of them says that this generation is a never-ending or involuntary process. I comment as follows on the verses GotQuestions quotes:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) 

Comment: Based on the grammatical structure of the Greek text, another article argues that this is better translated as “the Word was LIKE God,” similar to Philippians 2, which said that, before His incarnation, “He existed in the form of God” (Phil 2:6).

Based on this and the subsequent verses, one may conclude that the Son, from the perspective of the Creation, has always existed. However, the ‘beginning’ in this verse is probably the Genesis 1 creation; not some metaphysical beginning. It does not say that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. There is also no indication of ongoing or involuntary generation of the Son. 

The Word’s glory is “as of the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14). “God … gave his only Son.” (John 3:16) 

Comment: These verses merely state that the Father generated the Son; nothing about eternal or involuntary generation.

“No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” (John 1:18)  

Comment: This even implies that the substance of the Son is different from the Father’s for, while the Father is invisible, the Son is visible (cf. Col 1:15).

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26) 

Comment: This verse implies that only the Father and Son have “life in himself.” However, while the Son has received “life” from the Father, the Father has received “life” from no one. This is one of several indications in the Bible that the Son received from the Father everything He has. This supports the view that the Son was generated by and is subordinate to the Father. [Show More]

“I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” (John 14:11) “That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us.” (John 17:21) 

Comment: These verses explain themselves: To be “in” another is the same as to be “one” with another. The Father and Son are “one” and “in” one another just like Christians must be “one” and “in” one another. It does not mean to be literally one being. For a further discussion, see – I and the Father are one.

“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Hebrews 1:3) 

Comment: In isolation, this may seem as if the Son upholds the universe by His own power. However:

The pronoun “his” is used twice in this quote and four times in Hebrews 1:1-3. In the other instances, “His” always refers to God, meaning that the Son upholds the universe by the word of God’s power.”

Furthermore, the previous verse states that God created all things through His Son. It follows that God maintains all things through His Son.

That means that the Son has existed for as long as this universe has existed. However, God exists beyond this universe. There is an incomprehensible infinity beyond our universe that we know nothing about. The Son was begotten in that infinity. Time, as we know it, is only part of our universe. But if time of some kind exists in that infinity our universe, that the Son existed when this universe was brought into being by no means that He has ‘always’ existed in the infinity beyond time.

In conclusion, after listing these verses, Gotquestions vaguely concludes that “these verses … suggest that the relationship between Father and Son is one that has existed for all eternity and that the relationship depicts one of ontological equality.” In my view, neither of these points has even remotely been proven.

Conclusions

The Bible is clear that the Father generated the Son and that the Son is subordinate to the Father but the theory of Eternal Generation attempts to explain “begotten” in such a way that the Son is independent from and equal to the Father.

This discussion shows that Eternal Generation is largely based on extra-Biblical speculation. “The secret things belong to the LORD our God” (Deut 29:29) but theologians insist on explaining the unexplainable. The theory of the Eternal Generation reveals man’s arrogance.

Other Articles

Proudly powered by WordPress