There seem to be three Biblical arguments favouring the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Some people understanding this term literally as an act of creation (generation) of the Son by the Father which takes place in eternity, and so being an eternal act, it can’t have a beginning or an ending. However, others taking careful note of the words in the Nicene Creed: ‘begotten not made,’ regard this term as merely functional and not as a literal term, expressing that eternal relationship between the Father and Son and not to some specific act of creation (generation).
1.
Psalm 2:7: ‘Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee.’ However when this verse when it is quoted three times in the New Testament at
Acts 13:33,
Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 is always directly applied to Christ’s resurrection and never to his birth, or to an act of begetting which taking place in eternity is eternal.
2. The word ‘monogenses’ is translated ‘Only begotten’ five times when it’s applied directly to Christ in the KJV and NASV: ‘God so loved the world that he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son.’ (
John 3:16). However, Isaac is also spoken of as ‘an only begotten Son’ at
Hebrews 11:17. So does ‘monogenese’ i.e. ‘only begotten’ always imply ‘eternally begotten’ except at
Hebrews 11:17? For to be consistent, if Christ being ‘monogenes’ implies that he’s an eternally begotten Son, then Isaac too must also be an eternally begotten son, as he’s also spoken of as being ‘only begotten’ (monogenes) in the KJV and NASV Bibles at
Hebrews 11:17.
3.
John 5:26, we read here that the Father gives life to the Son. This I will concede seems to be a plausible argument for doctrine of eternal generation, however as the ‘life’ which is then given to us by Christ from the Father is the Greek word: ‘Zoë’ and not ‘bios’ does it possibly refers to Christ’s meditorial work in redeeming us, and not to his own ontological nature? The immediate context for
John 5:26 covers Christ’s resurrection of his redeemed people, and so it’s doubtful that hermeneutical constraints permit this to be applied to Christ own ontological nature. For unlike
John 1:1-4, at
John 5:26 Jesus is here telling us about our future resurrection and present salvation, i.e. that we receive a life which derives from the Father through him. Thus
John 5:26 possibly concerns us, and how we (not Christ) receive new life, this life (Zoë) being a pseudonym for redemption and future resurrection. After all the context of raising the dead in verses 21 and 25 concerns our salvation and how this new life (Zoë) is mediated to us.
Eternal generation is certainly an extremely difficult doctrine to understand, yet alone prove, and the key for any discussion of this complex doctrine depends upon how it is defined at the outset. Certainly the early Arians took
Psalm 2:7: ‘this day have I begotten thee’ literally and form this claimed a literal creation of the Son, from which they then proceeded to deny his deity. That this is a misquotation of
Psalm 2:7 is easy to prove by a simple examination of its application in the New Testament by the inspired writers. However, in the past this verse has been the chief proof text for the doctrine of eternal generation, with the words ‘this day’ incredibly being applied to an eternal day (i.e. in eternity) by Trinitarians, which is contradictory nonsense. Finally, whilst the creeds state that the Son is eternally begotten and the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding, the creeds never properly explain just what these terms mean.
Threaded Mode
