In some Bible translations, the words “only begotten” appear in reference to Jesus Christ (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). This seems to imply that Jesus Christ is a created being and, therefore, although He may be of high stature, He would not qualify as a coequal member of the Trinity. This seeming conflict can be traced to a defective translation of the Greek word monogenes. Nevertheless, after centuries of contemplation, the idea that Jesus Christ is a created being has persisted from Arius to Charles Taze Russell and beyond.
Church fathers of the fourth century, in the heat of the Arian controversy, took the word monogenes to be a union of mono, which means only, and the verb gennao, which means to generate or beget. Thus, the English words only begotten are derived from fourth century usage. As explained by Buswell, “When the orthodox church fathers were challenged by the Arians, who said that Christ was a created being and who pointed to the word monogenes for their evidence, the orthodox fathers did not have the facilities to prove that the word has nothing to do with begetting, but they knew that in the light of other Scriptures, Christ was not created: ‘There never was a time when He was not.’ They therefore accepted the word begotten but added the words not created.” (Buswell, p 111)
However, careful lexicographical studies prove beyond question that the word monogenes is not derived from the root gennao (to generate or beget) but is derived from genos which means type or kind. The word monogenes, therefore, means one and only or unique! For example, the French Bible correctly reads son fils unique for the English his only begotten Son.
It can be said, with confidence, that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about begetting as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. The Nicene Creed deals with this issue by saying begotten not made which reduces the meaning of begotten to zero.
While the mystery of begetting has been resolved, it gives rise to a second question. If the theanthropic Jesus Christ is, in fact, a distinct, uncreated, transcendent, immanent, infinite, eternal and immutable person who is co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, why is He called God the Son? Such a name would seem to relegate Jesus to a subservient position. However, the Son is never presented by Scripture as a generated being, as a subordinate, or as an inferior in any sense. When Jesus called Himself the Son of God and claimed that God was His own Father, this was, in the language in which it was understood, “making himself equal with God” (John 5:18).
The words God the Father and God the Son convey a type of personal relationship in the Trinity between two distinct, co-equal, uncreated, transcendent, immanent, infinite, eternal and immutable divine persons.
This is almost never clarified from the pulpit; many Christians believe Jesus was begotten by God the Father, as His Son, at the time of the incarnation. The uncreated, one true God has existed eternally as three distinct, co-equal, uncreated, transcendent, immanent, infinite, eternal and immutable divine persons (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit: The Holy Trinity); at the instant of the incarnation, God the Son became theanthropic -- human as well as divine.
The true implications of the titles ‘God the Father’ and ‘God the Son’ were clarified by the words of Samuel Wakefield, a 19th century Methodist Theologian:
“It follows, therefore, that it [Son of God] is a title characteristic of his mode of existence in the Divine essence, and of the relation which exists between the first and the second person in the ever-blessed Trinity.” (Wakefield, p 219)
and the words of James Oliver Buswell, a 20th century Reformed Theologian:
“It should not be difficult to understand the words ‘Father and Son’ as conveying a personal relationship in the eternal Trinity, without in any sense involving the thought of generation, or of any essential subordination.” (Buswell, p 112)
Some contemporary expositors continue to promote the eternal generation of God the Son, from eternity past, by God the Father; they also promote the essential subordination of Jesus Christ to God the Father. On these issues, the theology of the advocates differs only marginally from the theology of Arianism and it serves no useful purpose!
(See also Sections 1.10, 1.19, 1.23, 2.4 and 12.15 of Theology Corner)
