Life in Himself Archives » From Daniel to Revelation

2024-11-052024-11-05

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.

Ignatius of Antioch described the Son as our God.

This is an article in the series on the historical development of the Trinity doctrine.

These first articles discuss the views of the church fathers in the first three centuries:

- Were they Trinitarians?
- Did they think of God as One Being but three Persons?

Previous articles discussed the views of Polycarp and Justin Martyr. The current article reflects the thoughts of Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). All three of them were killed for their faith.

Triadic Passages

A Triadic passage is one in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned together. A famous example is Matthew 28:29:

“Baptizing them in the name of
the Father
and the Son
and the Holy Spirit”

Ignatius also mentioned the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together in a single sentence:

“In Christ Jesus our Lord,
by whom and with whom be glory and power
to the Father
with the Holy Spirit for ever” (n. 7; PG 5.988).

However, just mentioning them together does not mean that they are one Being or that they are equal. It only means that they are related. Take for example:

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God” (Eph 4:5)

Here, Paul mentions the Son as “Lord” and the Father as “God.” But he does not mention the Holy Spirit. He adds “faith” and “baptism.” This does not mean that these four are equal or one and the same. It only means that they belong together.

The Father alone is God.

That that triadic passage does not mean that the Persons of the Trinity are equal can be seen when Ignatius identifies the Father alone as God:

Thou art in error when thou callest
the daemons of the nations gods.
For there is but one God,
who made heaven, and earth, and the sea,
and all that are in them;
and one Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
whose kingdom may I enjoy. (Martyrdom of Ignatius 2)

Here, Ignatius refers to “gods,” “God,” and Jesus Christ. And he adds the word “one” before “God” and before “Jesus Christ.” This is similar to 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, which reads:

“Even if there are so-called gods
whether in heaven or on earth …
yet for us there is but one God, the Father,
from whom are all things and we exist for Him;
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.”

Both these statements explicitly identify the “one God” as someone distinct from the one Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, the Father alone is the “one God.”

The Only True God

Ignatius further wrote:

There is only one true God But our Physician is
the only true God,
the unbegotten
and unapproachable,
the Lord of all,
the Father and Begetter
of the only-begotten Son

We have also as a Physician
the Lord our God Jesus the Christ¹

The following discusses specific phrases from this quote:

Unbegotten

Ignatius describes the Father as “unbegotten” in contrast to the Son who is “begotten.” The ancients created the term “unbegotten” to indicate that the Father alone exists without a cause. See, for example, the Long Lines Creed. The Son received His existence from the Father.

Unapproachable

Ignatius also describes the Father as “unapproachable.” 1 Timothy 6:16 similarly says that the Father “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light.” His unapproachability is related to His invisibility. The Bible often states that God is invisible. For example:

“His beloved Son … is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:14-15).

Since the Son is both visible and approachable, He is not that “invisible” and “unapproachable” God.

Our God, Jesus the Christ

Ignatius describes the Son as “our God.” Trinitarians use such phrases to argue that the church fathers did believe that Jesus is God. Since many writers in the first 300 years referred to Jesus as “our god,” this is discussed in the article, Jesus, our god.

In summary, the ancient Greek language did not have a word exactly equivalent to the modern English word “God:”

In modern English, we use the word “God” as the proper name for the Ultimate Reality; for the One who exists without cause.

The ancients Greeks did not have such a word. They only had the word “god” (theos). This word was used for the Greek Pantheon, the gods of the nations, as well as for the One who exists without cause. Therefore, whether to translate theos as “God” or “god” depends on the context.

According to the translation above, Ignatius (and other church fathers) described Jesus as “our God” and the Father as “the only true God:”

The phrase “only true God” comes from John 17:3, where it describes the Father. This phrase is somewhat illogical because only one God (one Ultimate Reality) exists. The phrase is saying, similar to 1 Corinthians 8:6, that many gods exist but only one of them is truly “god.” So, to reflect the true meaning of the Greek, it might have been appropriate to translate it as “only true god.”

Similarly, the Greek says that the Son is “our god.” To translate theos, when it describes the Son, as “God,” is an application of the Trinity doctrine. It must not be taken as proof of that doctrine.

Basically, the Greek word “theos” means an immortal being with supernatural powers. That description certainly fits the One we know as Jesus Christ. For that reason, and since these church fathers maintained a strict distinction between the Almighty and Jesus Christ, they referred to Jesus as “our theos” as opposed to the “one true theos.” In that instance, “our theos” is better translated as “our god.”

For a further discussion, see – When referring to Jesus, how should theos be translated?

Incarnation

Ignatius continues to describe the Son:

The only-begotten Son and Word,
before time began,
but who afterward became also man, of Mary the virgin.
For ‘the Word was made flesh.’
Being incorporeal, He was in the body;
Being impassible, He was in a passible body;
Being immortal, He was in a mortal body;
Being life, He became subject to corruption,
that He might free our souls from death and corruption,
and heal them, and might restore them to health,
when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.²

Specific phrases from this quote are discussed below:

Before time began

Ignatius says that the Son was begotten “before time began.” That means that the Son has ‘always’ existed; that He existed as long as time existed.

The ancients assumed, based mostly on Plato’s philosophy, that time began when all things were created. Outside time, there exists a timeless infinity, for God exists outside time. The Father begat the Son in that incomprehensible infinity beyond time. If we use the word “before” metaphysically (not in a literal time sense), then we can say that the Father existed “before” the Son. However, from the perspective of creation, the Father and Son are co-existent.

Afterward became also man

Not all Christians believe that Jesus existed before He became a human being. See, for instance, Dr. Tuggy’s Case Against Preexistence. But, with exceptions, the ancients did believe in Christ’s pre-existence.

Incorporeal

According to Ignatius, before the Son became a human being, He was incorporeal (intangible). This seems like speculation. Where does the Bible say this? He is the perfect image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). Does that not mean that He is visible?

Impassible

Ignatius also said that the Son, before He became a human being, was impassible (incapable of suffering or feeling pain). “Impassibility” is a concept from Greek philosophy and also seems to be speculation when applied to the God of the Bible or to the pre-existent Jesus Christ.

In Greek philosophy, only the High God is impassible. To say that the Son is also impassible puts a very high view on Him.

Ignatius is here consistent with the Nicene Creed of 325. That Creed condemns “those who say (that the Son) is alterable or changeable.” This shows the influence of philosophy on that Creed.

Immortal

The statement that the Son was immortal seems to contradict the Biblical statement that the Father “alone possesses immortality” (1 Tim 6:16). However, there are two kinds of immortality:

Only the Father exists without cause and is therefore essentially (unconditionally) immortal.

The Son received His immortality from the One who exists without cause. Even created beings will become immortal “when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:54). But this remains conditional immortality. We will be immortal, not because we cannot die, but because God will not allow us to die.

Human souls, therefore, are not essentially immortal. Souls can die. “Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28). The immortality of human beings will always be conditional.

Being Life

The description of the Son as “being life” is perhaps explained by John 5:26:

“Just as the Father has life in Himself,
even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

On the one hand, it means that, just like He received His existence from the Father, He also received “life in Himself” from the Father. Since the Father is the only Being who exists without cause, all other beings, including His only-begotten Son, are subordinate to Him.

On the other hand, there are only two Beings who have “life in Himself.” This testifies to a uniquely close relationship and makes the Son very similar to God. Again, He is the perfect (but visible?) image of the invisible God (Col 1:15).

Physician

Ignatius described both the Father and the Son as physicians. He also describes the sinner as “diseased” and God’s aim as to “heal … restore … to health.” “Physician” is a most appropriate description of God’s attitude towards sinners: He is not an independent Judge, but a passionate Father (or Mother, for those of us who did not experience a loving father).

CONCLUSIONS

For Ignatius, the Father is “the only true God” and the only Being who exists without a cause. He distinguished between the “one God” and the “one Jesus Christ.”

According to the English translation, he described Jesus Christ as “our God.” However, the phrase “our God” is an interpretation. The Greek text simply says “our god.” To translate it as “our God” is an application of the Trinity doctrine; not proof thereof.

On the other hand, Ignatius did say that the Son was begotten “before time began.” That means that the Son has ‘always’ existed; that He existed as long as time existed.

There is also no evidence in the quotes above that Ignatius thought of the Holy Spirit as a self-aware Person, or that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one substance or one Being, as per the Trinity doctrine.

Tag: Life in Himself