#783 Jesus, the Only-Begotten of the Father
May 15, 2022Greetings and blessings Dr. Craig.
Recently I saw for the first time a Reasonable Faith video, where it explains what it means that Jesus is “begotten of the Father”, where the Christian tradition refers to his divinity, and affirms that the biblical reference is to his humanity.
Honestly, I find it difficult to understand from a logical point of view, that Jesus be begotten in eternity without contradiction, as to what we normally understand by "beget", taking into account an immaterial eternity.
I think it is more consistent with logic, that the biblical statements in this regard, allude to his human nature as you point out, however, there are passages like John 3:16, where it is read that God sent his only begotten Son, where it seems to indicate that Jesus already existed as a son before creation.
On the other hand, I am also very struck by what could imply that Jesus is begotten of the Father in terms of his humanity, especially from the genetic point of view, since if in some way God arranged a "sperm" to fertilize the Mary's ovum, as indicated by some church fathers, which would be in some way a sexual reproduction, which is critical because Greek and pagan mythology also believed it, not to mention that Mary also had a sinful nature.
In that order of ideas, he also read about a conception where God arose all the genetic material through a zygote implanted in Mary, and in this way certain problems about the sinful nature of Mary, a sexual reproduction between God and a human being, were solved. human being, since from that perspective there is no genetic but biological exchange through the umbilical cord.
I would like to read more from you on these two points, why you find it difficult to justify eternal generation, and also on the conception of Jesus from a genetic perspective.
Eleazar
Venezuela
Dr. craig’s response
A
Before I say something about your questions concerning the eternal begetting of the Son from the Father, Eleazar, let me dismiss your biological/genetic questions about Christ’s conception as conjectural and therefore not very profitable. I just don’t have much interest in speculating about matters on which we have no data. Jesus’ conception was miraculous, but just how it was done by God has not been revealed to us. In any case we should not connect the doctrine of original sin with genetics or biology.
Like you, I also harbor real reservations about the doctrine that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father (and also that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and/or the Son). But I don’t share your worry about Jesus’ being “begotten in eternity without contradiction, as to what we normally understand by ‘beget’, taking into account an immaterial eternity.” Understand that the term “beget” is in this context a metaphor, not literal. Begetting is not taken to imply a beginning in this case but just ontological dependence. Think of the old examples of the ray of sun proceeding from the sun. If the sun existed from eternity past, then its rays would be shining from eternity past. (Of course, the church fathers would understand “eternity” here to mean a state of timelessness, not backward omnitemporal duration). I see no reason at all to think that such a dependency relationship between Father and Son could not exist from eternity past without contradiction.
The point of the metaphor is to draw a contrast between creating and begetting. In cases of begetting, the offspring shares the same nature as the parent: cats beget kittens, dogs beget puppies, cows beget calves, etc. By contrast in cases of creating, the maker has a different nature than the artifact he produces. The carpenter has a different nature than the chair or table that he makes. So in characterizing Christ’s generation by the Father as begetting, the church fathers meant to emphasize the sameness of their nature (homoousios): God from God. Christ is not created by the Father. On the contrary, Christ is begotten but uncreated, whereas the Father alone its both unbegotten and uncreated.
Rather my worry is that the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son introduces a subordinationism into the ontological Trinity that properly belongs only to the economic Trinity and so threatens to diminish the person of Christ. Clearly, for the sake of the plan of salvation the second person of the Trinity has subordinated himself to the first and similarly the third person to the first and second. Each has his role to play in the economy of salvation. In virtue of God’s foreknowledge, we can even project that economic Trinity back into eternity prior to the creation of the world if we want to. (Though, frankly, it is striking that in the New Testament Christ is spoken of as the Son almost exclusively in the context of the incarnation. Cases that might seem otherwise could involve a sort of back reference. For example, I might say, “My wife attended Hudson High School” without meaning to imply that she was already married in high school! Luke, at least, seems to associate Jesus’ being the Son of God with his virginal conception [Luke 1.35]).
But if we project this subordination into the ontological Trinity itself, doesn’t that in some way diminish Christ? For now he is ontologically dependent upon the Father, just as creatures are. How can he possess the full divine nature if an essential property of God is aseity (self-existence, independence)? Could Christ fully possess the divine nature if he lacked omnipotence? Why think that he could lack aseity and yet be fully divine? Wouldn’t Christ be more fully magnified and glorified if we think of him as, like the father, existing a se? So given the lack of exegetical warrant for thinking that Christ is begotten in his divine, as opposed to his human, nature, why should we think that Christ is eternally begotten of the Father according to his deity?
- William Lane Craig