Begotten or Eternal? — The Controversy of the Sonship in Time and Eternity

[First and the Last]

Few discussions strike at the very heart of Christian identity like the question of the Son — Was He eternally existent as the Son, or was the Sonship a manifestation in time?

For centuries, this question has divided the church into two camps: those who proclaim an Eternal Son, co-existent and co-equal with the Father, and those who uphold a Begotten Son, revealed in time as the visible manifestation of the invisible God.

The phrase “the only begotten Son” (John 3:16) raises a fundamental question — can One be begotten and yet eternal in Sonship? The very word “begotten” speaks of origin, of a moment when that which was invisible became visible, when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Yet others argue that “begotten” points not to a beginning, but to a relationship within the Godhead that transcends time itself.

Here the tension becomes fierce:
If the Son is eternal, was He always subordinate to the Father — or does that imply a hierarchy within Deity? But if the Son is begotten in time, was there ever a moment when God existed without His Son — and if so, what was revealed at Bethlehem that had not existed before?

This debate is not merely theological—it reaches into the essence of salvation itself.
For if the Son was eternally distinct, then the Cross becomes an act between two divine persons.
But if the Son was begotten in time, the Cross becomes the moment when the invisible God robed Himself in flesh to redeem His creation personally.

The implications ripple through every doctrine — the incarnation, the atonement, the name of Jesus, and the nature of God Himself.

So, what do we really mean when we say “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son”?
Was this Son already existent from eternity, or was He the Word manifest — God revealed in human form for a redemptive purpose?

Let the discussion begin.

• Can the Son be eternal and begotten at the same time?
• Is “Son” a title of relationship within time, or a person within eternity?
• And does understanding this distinction determine how we view Jesus — as God the Son, or as God Himself made flesh?

 

[Christ4Ever]

Good questions @First and the Last
I believe the only way to reconcile what we find in Scripture is that a hierarchy exists in God.
To delve deeper than that, in the belief that we'll know for a surety, is something only eternity will provide us the answer to. We carry too much baggage and have external forces against us besides our own sin, which can confuse the matter, to allow us clarity of reason to understand past a certain level of knowing at this time, and so it becomes conjecture/argumentative. Thankfully, that is what God wants us to understand, which is to know Him and for believers, an eternity means that all the obstacles we face will one day be completely removed, giving us the opportunity to fully embrace Him for who He is as God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The above is never a satisfying answer for those wanting to fully know Him, but I can only speak for myself and not for others in coming to terms with God. That is why humanity continues to be divided, but thankfully it won't always be so.

When it comes to "salvation," if we trust the words of Jesus, nothing can ultimately take it away. God's grace and mercy, through His obedience, have reconciled us in a way nothing else ever could.

Although many threads have covered the topic, I really appreciate the way you presented it here. It’s always intriguing for any believer!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[First and the Last]

I believe the only way to reconcile what we find in Scripture is that a hierarchy exists in God.

That’s an interesting point, but I don’t think Scripture supports a hierarchy within God Himself. Hierarchy implies inequality—someone greater, someone lesser, someone subject—and that idea breaks down when applied to the One who declares, “I am the LORD, and there is none else.” What we often mistake for hierarchy in Scripture is really the distinction between God’s transcendent Spirit and His manifest work in flesh. When God took on humanity in Christ, the human nature naturally submitted to the divine—not because of rank, but because of role. It was the relationship between Creator and creation, not superior and inferior persons. To call that a hierarchy in God risks dividing what Scripture consistently reveals as perfectly one in essence, will, and purpose.

 

[Christ4Ever]

That’s an interesting point, but I don’t think Scripture supports a hierarchy within God Himself. Hierarchy implies inequality—someone greater, someone lesser, someone subject—and that idea breaks down when applied to the One who declares, “I am the LORD, and there is none else.” What we often mistake for hierarchy in Scripture is really the distinction between God’s transcendent Spirit and His manifest work in flesh. When God took on humanity in Christ, the human nature naturally submitted to the divine—not because of rank, but because of role. It was the relationship between Creator and creation, not superior and inferior persons. To call that a hierarchy in God risks dividing what Scripture consistently reveals as perfectly one in essence, will, and purpose.

If the Son is eternal, was He always subordinate to the Father — or does that imply a hierarchy within Deity?

I see the hierarchy as being Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Not that I'm looking for a debate but just letting you know how I see the need of a hierarchy as it pertains to God (Title).

Now God is seen as the Father and He is eternal, then the Son must also be, otherwise, if the Son did not exist eternally, then there can no Father, though God would still exist, otherwise who is God the Father of which is implied by the use of that word? You see the conundrum here? No Son, No Father. Unless of course they are eternal, and in essence this is so.

My conjecture which is all it can be at the moment, has been that if you think of an amoeba and then it splits which one is the original if you can't tell, what differentiates one from the other which is nothing? What have you?

Hierarchy in the Godhead, implies as you say inequality, but not when talking about God (Philippians 2:6-8), for that is a man concept that does not apply to God who is perfect. Since they, Father, Son, Holy Spirit are of the same essence and the one thing we do know about the Son, is that He is obedient (willingly), and that He is in total agreement "always" with the Father. What exactly is the inequality that we as man bring up? That somehow God the Father would not do as the Son would ask or vice versa? Only our faulty reasoning has difficulty grasping the fullness of God.

Now when we start talking about the manifestation of God, as Jesus. We'll that speaks to another ball of wax as well. lol We know that the divine of Jesus to become man limited himself. I won't name the verses that show this, but it is used by many to show that Jesus in the flesh is not all knowing etc. Anyway, this is why we came up with a word of hypostatic union to describe Jesus as one Person with two distinct natures: fully God and fully man.

As I said, this is just my understanding for now, and I have no intention of convincing you or anyone else about God. After all, knowing God is knowing eternity. I'm not there yet!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><
P.S. By the by. Are you male or female? I'd like to make the change to your bio to reflect the appropriate gender. Thanks in advance. K

 

[B-A-C]

In the Bible, the word "begotten" is most famously used in verses like John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son..." This term has deep theological significance, especially in Christian doctrine.

Meaning of "Begotten" in the Bible​

"Begotten" generally means "brought into existence by birth" or "generated." In biblical usage, especially in reference to Jesus, it emphasizes a unique relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son. It implies that Jesus is not a created being, but rather uniquely generated by God — sharing the same divine nature.

Greek Word for "Begotten"​

The Greek word translated as "begotten" in John 3:16 is μονογενής (monogenēs).

Meaning of​

• Mono = "only" or "one"
• Genēs = related to "kind," "type," or "origin"

So monogenēs is often translated as:

• "Only begotten"
• "One and only"
• "Unique"

In modern scholarship, many argue that monogenēs is better understood as "unique" or "one-of-a-kind" rather than strictly "begotten" in the biological sense. This interpretation highlights Jesus' unique status and relationship with God, rather than implying a literal birth.

 

[B-A-C]

Begotten vs. Created — Why Jesus Must Be God


One of the most important distinctions in Christian theology is the difference between begotten and created, especially when it comes to understanding who Jesus is.


Colossians 1:15 says:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

At first glance, “firstborn” might sound like Jesus was the first created being. But the Greek word used here is πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos), which often means preeminent or supreme in rank, not first in time. For example, in Psalm 89:27, God says of David: “I will make him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” David wasn’t the first king, but he was given the highest status.


Contrast this with John 3:16, which calls Jesus the “only begotten Son” — using the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs), meaning unique or one-of-a-kind, not created. This term emphasizes Jesus’ eternal relationship with the Father, not a beginning in time.


Now consider the logic:

• Genesis 1:1 — "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
• John 1:3 — "Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
• Colossians 1:16 — "For by him all things were created... all things have been created through him and for him."

If God created everything, and Jesus created everything, then Jesus must be God. He cannot be a created being if He created all things. Otherwise, He would have had to create Himself — which is a logical impossibility.


Conclusion:
Jesus is begotten, not created. He is eternally existent, the agent of creation, and fully divine. Scripture presents Him not as a creature, but as the Creator — co-equal with the Father.

 

[First and the Last]

I see the hierarchy as being Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Not that I'm looking for a debate but just letting you know how I see the need of a hierarchy as it pertains to God (Title).

Now God is seen as the Father and He is eternal, then the Son must also be, otherwise, if the Son did not exist eternally, then there can no Father, though God would still exist, otherwise who is God the Father of which is implied by the use of that word? You see the conundrum here? No Son, No Father. Unless of course they are eternal, and in essence this is so.

My conjecture which is all it can be at the moment, has been that if you think of an amoeba and then it splits which one is the original if you can't tell, what differentiates one from the other which is nothing? What have you?

Hierarchy in the Godhead, implies as you say inequality, but not when talking about God (Philippians 2:6-8), for that is a man concept that does not apply to God who is perfect. Since they, Father, Son, Holy Spirit are of the same essence and the one thing we do know about the Son, is that He is obedient (willingly), and that He is in total agreement "always" with the Father. What exactly is the inequality that we as man bring up? That somehow God the Father would not do as the Son would ask or vice versa? Only our faulty reasoning has difficulty grasping the fullness of God.

Now when we start talking about the manifestation of God, as Jesus. We'll that speaks to another ball of wax as well. lol We know that the divine of Jesus to become man limited himself. I won't name the verses that show this, but it is used by many to show that Jesus in the flesh is not all knowing etc. Anyway, this is why we came up with a word of hypostatic union to describe Jesus as one Person with two distinct natures: fully God and fully man.

I really appreciate the way you’re thinking through this—it’s clear you’re trying to preserve the eternal nature of God without diminishing His unity. Where I’d approach it a little differently is in how we understand those relational titles. “Father” and “Son” aren’t eternal designations that exist apart from the incarnation—they’re revelatory roles through which the one God made Himself known in time. Before creation, God was not “Father” in relation to a “Son” the way we understand those words; He was simply the eternal Spirit—self-existent, complete, needing nothing.


When He chose to enter time and take on flesh, He revealed Himself as the Father in Spirit and as the Son in humanity. That’s why Isaiah could say, “Unto us a child is born… and His name shall be called… the everlasting Father.” The relationship we see between Father and Son in Scripture is the interaction between God’s invisible, omnipresent Spirit and His visible, incarnate manifestation—Creator communing with His own creation.


So, when Philippians 2 speaks of Christ humbling Himself, it’s not describing an eternal subordinate relationship within the Godhead, but the humility of God taking the form of a servant. The obedience of the Son was the obedience of the man Christ Jesus submitting to the will of the indwelling Spirit—the same way our humanity must yield to the Spirit of God within us.


In that sense, the beauty of Christ’s example isn’t found in hierarchy, but in perfect harmony—the divine and human working as one. The Son didn’t exist eternally as a separate person beside the Father; He existed eternally as the Word, the self-expression of God, who “was made flesh and dwelt among us.”


So while I understand the desire to describe order or distinction, I think Scripture points us more toward manifestation and relationship than hierarchy or division. God remains eternally one in essence, will, and being—revealed to us as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.

 

[First and the Last]

Begotten vs. Created — Why Jesus Must Be God


One of the most important distinctions in Christian theology is the difference between begotten and created, especially when it comes to understanding who Jesus is.


Colossians 1:15 says:




At first glance, “firstborn” might sound like Jesus was the first created being. But the Greek word used here is πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos), which often means preeminent or supreme in rank, not first in time. For example, in Psalm 89:27, God says of David: “I will make him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” David wasn’t the first king, but he was given the highest status.


Contrast this with John 3:16, which calls Jesus the “only begotten Son” — using the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs), meaning unique or one-of-a-kind, not created. This term emphasizes Jesus’ eternal relationship with the Father, not a beginning in time.


Now consider the logic:

• Genesis 1:1 — "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
• John 1:3 — "Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
• Colossians 1:16 — "For by him all things were created... all things have been created through him and for him."

If God created everything, and Jesus created everything, then Jesus must be God. He cannot be a created being if He created all things. Otherwise, He would have had to create Himself — which is a logical impossibility.


Conclusion:
Jesus is begotten, not created. He is eternally existent, the agent of creation, and fully divine. Scripture presents Him not as a creature, but as the Creator — co-equal with the Father.

That’s a great breakdown, and I fully agree that Jesus was not created. Creation began in Genesis 1:1, but the Word already was (John 1:1). Where I’d offer a different perspective is in how we understand the term begotten. The word doesn’t describe an eternal generation within God, but rather the moment when the eternal Word was made flesh—when the invisible God took on visible humanity.


The term monogenēs—“only begotten”—beautifully expresses the uniqueness of that manifestation. There had never been another like Him: fully divine, yet fully human. The Son was “begotten” in the sense that God’s eternal Word came forth in time, clothed in flesh, conceived by the Spirit. Luke 1:35 makes that clear when the angel says, “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” His Sonship, then, began not in eternity past but in the incarnation—when the Spirit overshadowed Mary and God’s Word took on humanity.


So when Scripture says, “the Word was made flesh,” it’s not describing the birth of another divine person but the self-revelation of the one true God in human form. The same God who said, “Let there be light,” now shone in the face of Jesus Christ.


That’s why Jesus could say, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). He wasn’t a second divine being showing us another side of God—He was God revealed. The “begotten” Son shows us the invisible Father in a form we can see, touch, and know.


So yes—Jesus is begotten, not created. But that begetting points to manifestation, not a secondary existence within deity. The one eternal Spirit stepped into time, took on flesh, and walked among His creation as the Redeemer. He is not a God beside God; He is the God who came to save us.