Why Jesus Had to be "Begotten"!!

Dear Ian Boyne,

I appreciate your vote of confidence in asking me to exegete on the issue
of "eternal generation", as it is deemed by many to relate to Jesus' Sonship. Of course, it becomes painfully apparent that the term is not in the
Bible, and is a human construct intending to label a 'difficult' idea or
concept. I believe that if we follow certain safe rules laid down in the
Bible then we have nothing to fear. Here are some quick points to
consider in light of direct Biblical declarations, in light of God's image
in the family, and in light of historical records of the Christian Church
for the first three centuries (i.e. before the Roman Catholic system
originated):
1. The term "eternal generation" is contrived (by Origen and others) and
is difficult to apprehend, while it also can be controversial in meaning
since it can be interpreted in two ways:
a] the continuous begetting of Jesus as the Son of God from all
eternity past, and into eternity future. This is the Roman Catholic
adopted version (i.e. as inherited from some Christian apologists before
the origin of the Papacy), and it is tied to Jesus never being seen as
separate from the Father as a being, and he is depicted as being
continuously supplied with his life from the Father, like a stream from a
main fountain. This RC depiction is considered not just imagery but a
LITERAL process operating with "the Trinity". That's why the two go
hand in hand, i.e. the Papal version of the Trinity and eternal generation
in the present continuous sense!
b] a past one time begetting of Jesus as the Son of God, as a onetime occurrence that happened within eternity, but it cannot be fixed
at any given point even within eternity, since eternity has no
beginning point (or "before" and "after" concept). This is the version I
am more sympathetic towards, even though it is a term fraught with

difficulties, and comes with its own historical baggage, and semantic
complications. But since it is biblically irrefutable that Father and Son
are SEPARATE beings, then for Jesus to have been deemed a Son
through "eternal generation", it must mean it was a past event, and that
he has his own inherent ability to 'self-exist' (i.e. support his continued
existence independently of the Father after being "begotten"). John 5:
26. The problem though is that this second definition is not the way most
'expert sources' define eternal generation, and so if it is to be so defined
it must be deemed the 'unorthodox' definition, just like the 'unorthodox'
definition of 'trinity' which I subscribe to, i.e. the definition more leaning
towards a *trio or triad of divine beings (separate persons). All these
terms, whether "trio", "triad", or "trinity" (simple noun) are all human
labels placed on the self-evident unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
All terms can be controversial, and so if one chose not to use them, then
Bible language is best, but if one so desire to use them then careful
definition must be employed to avoid confusion.
*N.B. As to whether Father and Son are personal beings is already a
given, since the Father loved Jesus from the foundation of the world by
(reciprocated of course), and love exist only between among separate
beings. But the Bible can easily demonstrate too that the Spirit is
personal and is God or divine, but to decide on whether they are three
separate persons is a mooted issue for some. But notice that the vast
majority of early Christian writers (1st and 2nd century) accepted not
just that Jesus was literally begotten from eternity (not just of earth), but
also the vast majority accepted three persons of divinity, and equally
worshiped all three as one Godhead. This is telling, and especially
telling when it is considered that Nicea (325 A.D.) had three groups of
Christians representing the major views in Christianity on God, and yet
they all accepted the three persons of the Godhead, INCLUDING Arius
who declared that "there are three persons" or "three subsistences" when
he contended (via his statements of belief) against the homoousios term
regarding the mode of existence of all three. That is actually quite
historically compelling about the common truths among Christians since
the first century!

2. That Jesus is eternal as a separate being is without dispute, as these

texts show: Micah 5:2; 1 John 1:1-3; Prov. 8:1,22-24 (1 Cor. 1:24); John
1:1-3; Heb. 7:1-3; Rev. 2:8. In light of the fact that the Father's eternal
existence is only biblically defined to be Him existing BEFORE all
things in the universe was created (Ps. 90: 1, 2), then we can see why
Jesus is likewise deemed eternal since he is the creator of all those things
on his Father's behalf (Heb. 1:10-12; Col. 1:16,17). Jesus pre-existed all
things, including galaxies, solar systems, angels, earth and even time
itself; time which is predicated upon the origin of day and night, sun,
moon, and stars as the original time markers. Anything or anyone before
time itself is what is deemed eternal!! See also Heb. 9:14.
3. Jesus must have been a Son before his incarnation experience of
human Son-ship, since he was GIVEN to humans as a Son (John 3:16),
which strongly suggests a prior relationship, and this is underscored by
Proverbs 30:4. In addition, since "son-ship", whether literally or
figuratively, means a person reflecting the pre-exiting qualities of
another, then Heb. 1:2, 3 telling of Him fully reflecting the Father as
"the exact copy of his very being", then this means that in the divine
sense he did not exist independently but was always existing in relation
to another; the Father. Notice the Father is never said to be reflective of
Jesus, but always the other way around. That is actually irrefutable,
since "exact copy" is always in relation to a prototype as a
REPRODUCTION of the former; not two independent principles always
in existence and unrelated biologically or by 'speciation'!
4. As to whether the earliest Christians believed, and whether we should
likewise believe, that Jesus was literally begotten out of the very being
or substance of the Father from eternity is a matter that can be proven in
several ways:
a] The vast majority of the Christian writers of the first three centuries
expressed that belief. Being nearest the apostles, to themselves fully
understand the Greek they preached and wrote in, and then to be

commonly teaching this is compelling in itself. And if it be said they fell

in apostasy early, then the next witnesses will establish the matter,
especially the Bible as the final/ultimate authority (remember "in the
mouth of two or three witnesses" principle?)
b] The Bible uses imagery and terms that are quite compelling that this
was so, because, first, for Jesus to be depicted as "the Word", shows he
came out of the Father's very being. Words (whether first as thoughts, or
later as separate expressions) they do not come out of nothing, but out of
a source. Secondly, the Father used the first family on earth to
demonstrate that one being came out of the substance of the other, and
yet they remained "one flesh". If God had made Eve from a separate
lump of clay, the two could never be considered "one flesh"; but two
independent substances. Plus the principle of one coming out of the
other was all part of the image of God in Man. If God did not have this
prior relationship with His Son, then there would be no image to reflect,
since images must have a prior existing principle to reflect. It's illogical
otherwise.
c] In addition, since Jesus is described by the term "monogenes" (only
begotten), which has both the meanings of "an only child literally born
from the substance of his parent", as well as "a unique member of a
group", then we see why John was inspired to use the term that captures
both ideas; the meanings should not be set in tension, but accepted as
BOTH applying to Jesus' being!!
d] By the very fact that God uses the head of the family to be the source
of family oneness, this means that for God to remain one, he and Jesus
could not always exist side by side as independent principles, otherwise
you would have two Gods; not one (i.e. a NATURALLY related unity of
beings, but headed by the source figure)! And thus Jesus MUST be
depicted as "from" the very being of the Father from all eternity (Micah
5:2; Prov. 8:1,22-24); not existing by himself independent of the Father.
Yes, Jesus always separately existed as a being from all eternity, but he
is God in nature not by self-origination, but because he is the exact copy

of the Father from all eternity, and hence is properly an eternal Son; a
paradox of paradoxes!! By the way, the Father did not 'originate'
himself. That's ridiculous. He simply exists from everlasting. Just like
that. The Son likewise exist "from everlasting", but as naturally related
to the Father that he is "the exact copy" of. That's Bible truth!!
e] Finally, if Satan is a master counterfeiter, then we can see why most
false religions have 'god' beings emanating from, or begotten by a head
figure. This was Satan's' way of counterfeiting the original, even while
intending to caricature and cast doubt upon divinity. You don't
counterfeit what is not really in existence in the first place. Notice too
his most favored counterfeit...triads, trios, and trinities. I guess he
cant help himself as a counterfeiter Ian, and it tells us why 1 Cor. 12:46, 11 or Eph. 4:4-6, or Matthew 28:19 are so compelling as to the
"triadic" nature of the Godhead; matters not the protestations of the
unlearned and misguided.
Hope these thoughts of mine are helpful Ian. I am seeing the plain truth
in SD Adventism about God, despite we do have some points not yet
properly worked out. But who can ever claim to be able to "find out
God", or the things of God, to perfection? NONE!! Job. 11:7-9. It is an
ongoing school. And if we humbly accept our own limitations, even
while accepting all that the Bible says, and if we humbly use the family
of humanity as the image of divinity, then much of our difficulties would
be lessened. We must also be willing to learn and unlearn, or else we
would be aptly described by the Apocalypse (the Revelation of Jesus) to
thinking that we are rich and increased with goods, and in need of
nothing.
Derrick Gillespie