Introduction:
In the last post here Growing Christian Resources: Post #8 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "The only begotten Son of God" (P1 Arguments favorable to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son),we began to look at that part of the Nicene Creed that asserts that Jesus Christ is "the only begotten Son of God". This is what the Nicene Creed says in its opening lines about God the Son:
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God"
I want to review first the main reason we are taking extra time on this phrase "only-begotten". It all has to do with the doctrine of the Son's "eternal generation" from the Father.
Review: What is the doctrine of eternal generation about?
In the last post we looked at how the Greek word "monogenes", translated "begotten" in the Nicene Creed, is connected to what is known as "the doctrine of eternal generation." In the last post we defined this doctrine along two lines.
1. First, those who argue for the eternal generation of the Son teach that Father eternally communicates to Him the entire Divine nature. In eternal generation, the Divine essence is shared without division from The Father to The Son.
2. Then secondly, the distinguishing characteristic that defines the Son as "the Son" is in how the Father begets Him or what theologians call "filiates". Filiation conveys to the Son His identity.
Eternal generation is not creation. Unlike the ancient Arians, who proclaimed "there was a time when the son was not", akin to Jehovah Witnesses today who proclaim the Son to be God's "highest created being", eternal generation is an eternal act within the Trinity.
Theologian Matthew Barrett summarizes the main points of eternal generation in his book "Simply Trinity", pages 167-175. I'll supply headings and scripture to bring home what Barrett states.
1. The Divine essence is not reduplicated by the Father in eternal generation. "When the Father begets he communicates the one (simple) divine essence to His Son, but He does not multiply the Divine essence." Barrett later says: "Not only is the Divine nature not multiplied, it is not divided." Scripture supports this first idea in John 5:26 from Jesus Himself: "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself."
2. The Son is eternally equal in all respects to the Father. Barrett comments on the eternality of the Son's generation: "And if eternal, then the generation of the Son is not the generation of a lesser being (made in time or before time) but the generation of a Son who is equal in deity to His Father." Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son He says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom."
3. The Triune God undergoes no change with the Son's eternal generation. "The Son's generation involves no change in the Trinity." What Barrett means here is there is no change in the number of Divine persons (from one to now two or three). There has only ever been Three Persons. He also means there is no diminishing of the Divine nature, where God the Father has more deity than the Son. The Father and Son are equal in all respects. God's Divine immutability still holds in the eternal relation between the Father and Son. Hebrews 1:10-12 "And, 'You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; 11 They will perish, but You remain; and they all will become old like a garment, 12 And like a mantle You will roll them up; like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.”
4. Eternal generation is an act within the Trinity, between the Father and the Son. Barrett finally notes that the generation of the Son by the Father occurs within the Trinity, not outside, meaning the Father is not creating a lesser being. David writes in Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You." We know this is in reference to an eternal acts between the Father and the Son, as in Hebrews 1:5 "For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”? And again,
“I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me”?
The doctrine of eternal generation, as noted, centers around a particular word in the New Testament that is translated "begotten" in older English translations, the word "monogenes". Five key passages which we looked at in the last post are direct proof-texts used by those affirming the doctrine of eternal generation and the translation "begotten" (John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; 1 John 4:19). That summarizes what is meant by the doctrine of eternal generation.
Not everyone is a fan of the doctrine of eternal generation
However, over the last century scholarly opinion has suggested that the term "monogenes" ought be translated "one and only" to highlight the uniqueness of the Son of God over against adopted sons (i.e. those born again in saving faith, see for instance Romans 8:14-16) and that special class of created angelic beings called "sons of God" (Job 38:7).
In so far as the second Person of the Trinity is certainly unique as compared to those other two classes, the point of those advocating monogenes to mean "one and only" or "unique" is to do away with what is in their view un-necessary speculation about the eternal relation between the Father and the Son. 1
If we were to apply this more recent set of suggestions, the Nicene Creed would read something like this:
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the one and only Son of God".
In this post, I'll mention a couple of thinkers that oppose the doctrine of eternal generation and the translation of monogenes as "only-begotten". I will then end the post with why eternal generation of the Son as "only begotten" is still the preferred position.
Some suggest that the doctrine of eternal generation is unnecessary, and instead the Person of the Son is distinguished from the Father another way
Two theologians whom I would otherwise consider sound in their doctrine have in the past denied the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son. Drs. Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem have at various points attempted an alternative approach to describing what distinguishes the Father and the Son. Both men assert the co-eternality and co-equality of the two Divine Persons in the Godhead. For them though, the distinction lies in various roles of authority and submission.
God the Father, for Ware and Grudem, is the lead authority in the Trinity, while the Son eternally submits to Him. This view, known as "eternal subordination of the Son" or "ESS", or "Eternal Relationships of Authority and Submission" or ERAS, sees the Son as subordinated in role, not essence or being to the Father. Grudem for instances writes in the second edition of his systematic theology:
"This priority of the Father (or leadership role, or authority, of the Father) with respect to the Son is a consistent pattern in Scripture that is true prior to creation."
Grudem takes the doctrine of eternal generation to be about roles and positions between the Father and Son, while all the while continuing to affirm the Father and Son's eternal equality and unity of nature.
As Ware and Grudem apply this to understanding the roles of male headship in marriage, they argue that the marriage relationship is patterned off of what they claim is an authority structure within the Trinity. As much as I support the distinct roles and equal value of the husband and wife in marriage, I cannot find evidence in Scripture that directly links that pattern as drawn from equality and distinction within the Trinity.
ESS advocates will point to representative passages to show the Son's role of submission to the Father. For instance, in John 5:19, Jesus taught: "Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner."2
The failure at times to distinguish the work the Trinity does in our world from how the Three Persons are within the Godhead is among the weaknesses of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) view. Theologian Charles Lee Irons evaluates the ESS view and then makes this observation:3
"The urgent question that must be faced by theologians who want to retain and aspect of eternal functional subordination theology is whether it is possible to relate these two divergent understandings of Sonship: is the Son's identity grounded in eternal generation or in eternal obedience?"
For Irons, such an attempt (as done by Drs. Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem) is fraught with too many tensions. Eternal generation affirms without qualification the equality of the Son to the Father, making the distinction between them only about the Begetter (The Father) and the Begotten (the Son).
The unintentional effect can be if we also add "roles" or "authority" language to the Father and Son, the ESS position can almost sound similar to the beginnings of the heresy of Arianism, which flat-out asserts the Son's subordination as a created being.
Why eternal generation of the Son still best explains the term "monogenes" or only begotten in the Bible and thus the Nicene Creed
Since around 2016, Drs. Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem have changed their minds about denying the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son. In Wayne Grudem's 2nd edition of his "Systematic Theology", he ends up affirming the doctrine of eternal generation. However, he still holds to the eternal submission of the Son to the Father as a second way of distinguishing the two Divine persons.4 Their change of opinion is commendable, since it takes a lot of humility to express how one has changed their mind on a major issue in print. Still, the tensions in their view as I described above shows how relatively fragile the ESS view can be compared to the time-tested view of eternal generation.
When I look at another modern example of someone changing their mind on the doctrine of eternal generation, Dr. John MacArthur, the difference is He didn't try to hold onto a viewpoint that would had tension with the doctrine. MacArthur's change of mind to affirming eternal generation led to him sharpening and preaching a more robust doctrine and defense of the Son's equality with the Father.5
Why "begotten" better captures the eternal relation between the Father and the Son than the rendering "one and only".
As we draw this post to a close, let me offer one final argument to reinforce why the doctrine of eternal generation and the translation of "begotten" is most appropriate as summarized by the Nicene Creed's handling of the Scriptural data. Many modern translations have taken the stance to render "monogenes" as uniformly "one and only" or "unique". The problem I have in translating "monogenes" as "one and only" or "unique" is it assumes that rendering is the only way to translate that word.
There are places of course where "monogenes" refers to the sole offspring of someone without other children (Judges 11:34 in the Greek translation of the Old Testament or Septuagint, also Luke 7:17; 8:42; 9:38). However, there are cases where "monogenes" carries the additional meaning of a special, covenantal, or even transmission of spiritual identity from a father to a son (take for instance Abraham and Isaac in Hebrews 11:17). In other words, to translate "monogenes" as one and only in those contexts may risk under-translating the passages that deal with the eternal relations of the Father and the Son (John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16 for example).6
Final thought.
Despite modern efforts to deny the doctrine of eternal generation, or to do away with the translation "begotten", for the reasons cited near the end of this post, I would argue that the doctrine of eternal generation as expressed in the Nicene Creed still holds.
Endnotes:
1. The "unnecessary speculation" referred to here has to do with the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. For some, this view is a by-product of Greek philosophical thinking imported into the history of theological reflection on the Son. Further, opponents of eternal generation assert the Nicene Creed itself betrays this Greek influence, spelling out its doctrine of eternal generation with allegedly no Biblical support. Some notable authors of the recent past who had reservations about the doctrine of eternal generation and the translation of "monogenes" as "only-begotten" were such notables as B.B. Warfield and New Testament Greek Scholar F.J. Hort. The latter began the idea that "monogenes" ought be translated "one and only" or "unique", prompting many English translators to gradually render "monogenes" as "one and only", especially in the last twenty five years.
2 Those promoting the eternal submission of the Son (ESS) doctrine will use such a passage to prove their point. However, when one carefully reads what Jesus is teaching, the passage is not advocating an eternal submissive role of the Son to the Father within the Trinity. Instead, Jesus is describing how He and the Father act inseparably in our world, what theologians call "inseparable operations".
When the Son became incarnated, He in His humanity yielded to the Father and submitted Himself under the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. Whenever we see the Trinity at work in creation and salvation, we call their work an "economic work". In other words, for the sake of creation, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit will work in a particular ordered pattern or economy. The Son is sent by the Father, for example, and the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. God in His revelation operates this way for our sakes. However, within the life of the Trinity itself, we do not see such ordering, since the only things distinguishing the Father from the Son is the Son being begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit's distinction from the Father and the Son lies in His proceeding from the Father through the Son (see John 15:26).
3 On Classical Trinitarianism. Edited by Matthew Barrett. Intervarsity Press. 2024. See chapter 23 in that book. Charles Lee Irons, Only Begotten Son, page 440-441.
4 The doctrine of eternal generation teaches that the Father has conveyed to the Son the Divine essence without beginning, meaning that the Son, begotten of the Father from eternity, is equal and not lesser than the Father. It would seem that this would create a tension in Grudem's system, since eternal subordination of the Son does make the Son under the Father in position as ever submitted to Him.
5 Here is the link to MacArthur's full statement on how he changed his mind on the doctrine of eternal sonship. Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ
6 Take for instance in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is offered by Abraham. In many more recent translations (LSB, NASB 2020, CSB, NIV, ESV), Isaac is referred to as Abraham's "only" or "one and only" son. On the other hand, the KJV, NKJV, and MEV render Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten" son. If we were to translate monogenes as "one and only", that would neglect Abraham's other son, Ishmael, who came before Isaac by 13 years. Isaac is the son of promise, a special, spiritually significant begetting that transmits the promise of God given to Abraham to his son Isaac. As for the eternal Son of God, his "begetting" by the Father is an eternal act between the Father and the Son.
The Divine nature is shared in such a way between the Father and the Son that without the Son being begotten by the Father, there would be no Father. Likewise, without the eternal conveyance of "Son-ship" to the Son by the Father (as noted earlier, "filiation"), there would be no Son. The act of begetting is what makes the Father the Father, and being begotten by the Father is what makes the Son the Son.
No other means of distinction (whether differing roles, or heretical route of differing natures, as proposed by Arius) suffice to preserve consistently the equality of the Father and Son in essence with their distinct identities within the Godhead. The Apostle John captures this point when he records Jesus saying in John 6:65 - "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself." This equality and union in nature is expressed by Jesus in John 14:9 "Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?"
