Even though we have seen that monogenes does not mean “only begotten,” the language of Christ’s having been “begotten” (Ps 2:7), “born” (1 John 5:18) or “firstborn” (Col 1:15) must be explained. Is there some point at which God “generated” the Son? Several options have been proposed:
- Some have taken these passages to indicate that there was no subordination within the Trinity until some point in human history when God decreed this subordination (e.g., Christ’s incarnation, baptism, resurrection, etc.). This option is easily answered by referencing the fact that God sent his Son, that is, Christ was the Son prior to his being sent (John 3:16–17; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1 John 4:9, 10, 14; by implication Matt 21:37; Luke 20:13). Further, it appears that Christ has always played a sonship role as the “agent” of the Trinity (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 2:18; Col 1:16).
- In view of these facts, it has been proposed that Christ was made the Son at some point in time before creation, but not from all eternity. This option is difficult to comprehend in view of the relationship of God to time. “Time” did not begin until creation. God is above time, that is, not bound by time. It is hard to conceive of something happening at a point in time when as yet time did not exist.
- A third and very popular option among fundamentalists and other evangelicals is that God has generated the Son from all eternity. That is, the subordination within the Trinity has always existed through an eternal “generation” of the Son and “procession” of the Spirit.
- A fourth option asserts that “generation” and “procession” are simply anthropological terms used for convenience. These terms are not intended to convey the idea of origin, but of subordination. “Generation” and “procession” have to do with the hierarchical relationship has always existed within the Trinity, and the idea of an active and continuous communication of sonship and spirithood is neither exegetically or theologically necessary. Christ is the Son, he is not “sonned”; the Spirit is the Spirit of God, he is not “spirated.” In view of the following comments, this option seems to have a slight edge over the previous one.
“Problem” texts for Option 4:
- Colossians 1:15. The statement that Christ is the “firstborn” is probably to be viewed in light of Psalm 89:27, where we find that the term emphasizes rank, not birth. This, Christ is first in rank over all creation and not the first person ever “born.”
- Psalm 2:7. This passage, quoted more than once in the NT, describes a king as being “begotten” when he assumes the throne. Originally this verse refers to David, then the succession of kings after him, culminating in Christ. In the case of the strictly human kings, this cannot be a day of birth, but a day of declaration. The same is true of Christ. This is not the day on which he receives sonship, but the day on which his special relationship to the Father is demonstrated publicly by his assumption of the throne.
1 John 5:18. This is the most problematic of all the texts, and, in this author’s view, the only passage that could point to eternal generation. A significant textual issue clouds the issue. The verse may read (1) “the one born of God [Jesus] keeps him [the believer]” (nasb, niv), or (2) “the one born of God [the believer] keeps himself” (kjv, nkjv). The support for either option is rather evenly split, and theological considerations would seem to suggest the latter is correct.
Stand Firm! 