THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF THE FATHER

"THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF THE FATHER":

A BIBLICAL WARRANT FOR THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL GENERATION IN JOHANNINE LITERATURE

BY: Daniel McMillin

The Definition and Development of the Doctrine of Eternal Generation

The doctrine of eternal generation is concerned with the ontological relation shared among the Father and Son. The Father eternally begets the Son and the Son eternally proceeds from the Father.[1] John Webster has defined “eternal generation” as “the personal and eternal act of God the Father whereby he is the origin of the personal subsistence of God the Son, so communicating to the Son the one undivided essence.”[2] Francis Turretin focuses on the term “communication” in his definition of eternal generation by defining it as a “communication of essence on the part of the begetter to the begotten (by which the begotten becomes like the begetter and partakes of the same nature with him), so this wonderful generation is rightly expressed as a communication of essence from the Father (by which the Son possesses indivisibly the same essence with him and is made perfectly like him).”[3] In this paper, I will define and summarize the development of the doctrine of eternal generation. I will then defend the doctrine by providing exegetical reasons from the Johannine writings to support this case.

The eternal generation of the Son has been an important doctrine since the patristic era, the reason for this is because the doctrine explains why the eternal Son is the Son and not the Father or Holy Spirit. It is because the Son is eternally begotten or generated from the Father that He is said to be the Son. The term “generation” (“coming forth”) refers to “the Son’s eternal origin in the Father.”[4] The doctrine of eternal generation is vital since these “eternal relations of origin alone can tell us why God is Trinity.”[5] God is three in persons rather than one because the eternal relations of origin distinguish and explain why the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, and the Spirit is the Spirit.[6] It is because “the Father begets and breathes, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit is breathed.”[7] These eternal relations of origin are the “internal marks” of the Trinity.[8] Dogmatically, their function is to provide the basis for the personal distinctions and eternal uniqueness among the three persons.[9]

Those who confess the Nicene Creed affirm belief “in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.”[10] The doctrine of eternal generation was viewed by the Nicene Fathers as an essential element to the Christian faith. It is “the church’s attempt to specify the origin of Jesus Christ in the eternal life of the one God.” It clearly teaches “that the Son is from the Father, and God has always been this way and did not become this way.”[11] This terminology of generation originated from Origen, though much of what he wrote would not be in alignment with orthodoxy, who would describe the second person of the Godhead as the Father’s “only begotten Son” that “was born indeed of him and draws what he is from him, but is yet without any beginning.”[12] Origen will appeal to the various divine names of the Son to articulate the eternal begetting of the Son. Lewis Ayers notes that he “persistently uses the doctrine as part of a broader attempt to distinguish Creator and creation and to offer an account of the Creator as eternally generative and benevolent.”[13] Augustine, who is possibly the most prominent Trinitarian theologian throughout history, will also be heavily influential in regard to this doctrine.[14]  Augustine’s pursuit to affirm eternal generation “arises from substantial engagement with Scripture and plays a crucial role in explicating both the relations of the divine persons and their work in creation, providence, and redemption.”[15] His words would echo that of Origen when he writes that the eternal generation “from the Father bestows being on the Son without any beginning in time, without any changeableness of nature.”[16] These patristic witnesses appeal to Scripture for affirming the doctrine of eternal generation.

From the fourth to eighteenth century, the doctrine of eternal generation was the norm. However, the doctrine of eternal generation, like many other classical doctrines affirmed by the pro-Nicene Fathers, has been lost to the modern world and replaced with a social, relational model of the Trinity.[17] The doctrine was used by the pro-Nicene, Medieval, and Post-Reformation theologians to explain the distinction and equality of the three-divine person of the Trinity. However, many modern theologians have substituted the doctrine of eternal generation for the eternal functional subordination of the Son (EFS).[18] If eternal generation was an important doctrine, why was it abandoned? This next section will discuss the departure from the doctrine of eternal generation and the rise of eternal functional subordination.

The Recent Departure from Classical Trinitarian Theology and Rise of Relational Trinitarianism

B.B. Warfield’s entry on the Trinity in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is one of the most heavily influential contributions to the doctrine of the Trinity.[19] Warfield believes that when we affirm (1) the oneness of God (“there is but one God”), (2) the divinity of each person (“the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each God”), and (3) the distinction in persons (“the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person”) that we have articulated the biblical and orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Notwithstanding, his article departs from the classical manner that this doctrine has been articulated in, especially with regards to his undermining of eternal generation. He affirms his three basic points at the expense of neglecting the personal properties of the Trinity.[20] Scott R. Swain notes that “this omission is not an oversight on Warfield’s part. It is the result of reasoned, interpretive judgment.”[21] In Warfield’s view, the personal properties are not required to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, that is to say, they are neglected because he does not consider them to be as important as they once were before by the Great Tradition. He further specifies that the eternal generation of the Son and the divine procession of the Holy Spirit, “are not implicates of their designation as Son and Spirit.”[22] In other words, the Son is not the Son because He proceeds from the Father and the Spirit is not the Spirit because He proceeds from the Father through the Son. The divine names that are revealed in Scripture (“Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit”) are not grounds for affirming personal properties (“paternity,” “filiation,” and “spiration”). The divine titles “contain no implication of derivation” instead they reveal the “unique consubstantiality” and “priority of existence.”[23] Warfield recognizes that God has revealed Himself in three persons with three distinct names; however, he does not provide the grounds for these divine names.

Summarizing Warfield’s arguments twofold: (1) The traditional interpretation of the New Testament uses the divine names in many ways to portray the Triune God. (2) The divine names do not signify origin from the Father but equality with the Father. Swain responds that (1) Warfield’s argument “is not problematic for the traditional interpretation of personal names” since the various ways the divine names are employed “neither relativized nor undermined the traditional interpretation.” In fact, “the New Testament often employs additional names for the Trinity in order to further specify the meaning of the names Father, Son, and Spirit,” thus supporting the Biblical warrant for the personal properties.[24] (2) In biblical idioms, relations of origin regularly constitute likeness or equality. That is to say, to be the begotten Son of the Father applies in both a literal non-Trinitarian context and in a metaphorical Trinitarian context.[25] The Father-Son relation is one of “relation of origin” where the Father is the “principle or source of the Son’s person or agency, and ontological equality, with the Son sharing the self-same nature and agency of the Father.”[26]

Warfield’s departure from eternal generation in the 20th century has influenced 21st century Trinitarian theology. John Feinberg, for example, recognizes that “the church historically has affirmed that the Son is eternally generated,” and readily admits that he parts “company with a host of theologians throughout church history” by rejecting eternal generation since it is ambiguous (“unclear”), nonsensical (“makes little sense”), and unnecessary (“not required by Scripture”).[27] According to Feinberg, the Bible reveals God as “clearly divine” and uncreated, and yet, sometimes the Bible appears to portray Him beginning to exist. He notes that the language “the Son is generated by the Father,” as it has been historically affirmed, is located in “biblical language about Christ as only begotten and firstborn are said to prove this point.”[28] Fienberg finds issue with the definition of this doctrine especially since the advocates for eternal generation “remove all thought of human generation” and “say that this generating has been happening as long as God has existed.”[29] Eternal generation grounds the Father-Son relationship; however, Feinberg holds that it is not required to find unity or make distinctions among the persons. In so doing, “Feinberg has limited himself to less coherent interpretations of biblical passages that use God for the Father alone and speak of the Father doing all things through the Son.”[30] Feinberg concludes that “it seems wisest to abandon” any processions within God since the meaning is “shrouded in obscurity” there is no “biblical support” for it, and it fails to prove the point it is trying to make. Even if the term “Son” is used metaphorically, this does not necessarily mean that the Son must be eternally begotten.[31] In his view, eternal generation is a doctrine that is altogether unnecessary for affirming the doctrine of the Trinity.[32]

Though this doctrine may be heavily neglected and criticized by many in academia, “the doctrine of eternal generation is worth retrieving: for the good of the church and theology and for the glory of the triune God.”[33] My aim is to retrieve the doctrine of eternal generation by providing a Biblical basis for affirming this doctrine.  I will be arguing for a Johannine basis for the eternal generation of the Son where I will discuss the Father-Son relation in John 5.[34]  

The Exegetical Basis for the Doctrine of Eternal Generation in Johannine Literature

In John 5, Jesus heals a lame man at Bethesda on the Sabbath (John 5:1-14). Once the Jews received the news of Jesus’ miracle, they then persecuted Jesus for working on the Sabbath (John 5:15-16). Jesus responds, “my Father is working until now, and I Myself am working” (John 5:17). When Jesus is using the Father’s name in this intimate way, He is making Himself “equal with God.”[35] He is aligning Himself with the work of God by claiming that “the Father works in him while he works.”[36] He argues that the Father does not cease to work on the Sabbath and neither does the Son. The Jews understood the implications of Jesus’ statement. Jesus not only broke the Sabbath but claimed equality with God by “calling God His own Father” (John 5:18). The Jews discerned that Jesus is claiming that He has “proceeded directly from him and was equal to him” since God is “His own Father.”[37] Jesus spoke of His relation to the Father as “the right pertaining to eternal equality.”[38] While incarnate, He understood He shared the divine nature as the “Son of God.”[39] Jesus continues to develop His case for coequality with the Father in His following speech in verses 19-47.

John 5:19-23 is framed around four γάρ (“for” or “because”) statements. The first two in v. 19-20 reveal that Jesus understood His works are divine. The second two in v. 21-23 demonstrate that He knew that these works deserve His worship. The first γάρ statement introduces the last clause in verse 19. The second γάρ statement explains the fundamental dynamic of the unique Father-Son relationship. The third γάρ statement affirms Jesus’ authority and power of resurrection. The fourth γάρ statement shows that Jesus understood that resurrection and judgment are meant for divine worship.[40]

When Jesus says that “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” (John 5:19), He is affirming that the Father and Son do not act contrary to one another.[41] “The works of the Father and the Son are inseparable.”[42] This has traditionally been called the “doctrine of inseparable operations” which affirms that the three divine persons “share the divine agency of the one God.”[43] Here, Jesus is claiming that “everything he does he only does because he has received it from the Father.”[44] The Son is not competing with the Father; rather, He acts when “He sees the Father” acts. Theodore of Mopsuestia suggests that if the Son “does only what he sees the Father doing, he evidently possesses a perfect similarity with the Father in his action. And this would be impossible if he did not have the same power.”[45] The Son’s claim of inseparable operation with the Father is a claim of equality with the Father. “No one can do in the same way the same work that another had done unless he shares in the unity of the same nature, but at the same time also is not inferior in the method of working.”[46] The Father and Son work inseparably “because the whole Son is from the Father, and his whole substance and power is from him who begot him.” Since the Son shares in the same divine essence, then it must follow that the Son does not work contrary to the Father.[47] Further, the Son does what the Father does. As Augustine said, “with the same power the Son does the very same things that the Father does when the Father does them through the Son.”[48]

Since the Father and Son are consubstantial, coequal, and coeternal, then it follows that they operate inseparably.[49] The persons shared divine essence implies the united shared work. It is important that Jesus lay out the foundation for His claim of equality with the Father by beginning with the inseparable works of God. The Son is not equal with the Father if they are not united in their will and work.[50] The Father cannot work apart from the Son. Likewise, the Son cannot work apart from the Father. “Every action of Jesus is an action that originates with the Father in some sense. Jesus carries out no actions that are not also actions of the Father.”[51] The actions of the Son are the actions of the Father and the actions of the Father are the actions of the Son. When all three persons act inseparably it is proper to say that God acts. Jesus’ argument is that unity of action constitutes unity of relation.

“For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing” (John 5:20). “The Father,” by nature, “loves the Son.” If the Son acted contrary to the Father, then the Father would not uniquely love the Son.[52] The Father’s love for the Son is unique. “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand” (John 3:35). Wellum has described this “divine love” as “the relational dynamic that moves the Father to bring the Son into all that the Father is doing.” This divine love is “eternal and infinite.” That is why “the Son has shared the Father’s will, desires, and power without any limits or capacity.”[53] 

Moreover, the Son does not act unless He sees what the Father is doing and the Father “shows Him all things” that He does so He may act. To demonstrate how the Son acts inseparable from the Father, He appeals to the divine acts of resurrecting the dead, giving judgment, and gives life. Jesus argues that “just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life” the same may be said about the Son who “gives life to whom He wishes” (John 5:21) since the Father has given “Him authority to execute judgment” since “He is the Son of Man” (John 5:27; cf. Dan. 7:13-14). Jesus then notes that the Father “has given all judgment to the Son,” that is, given “in the act of generation,”[54] so the Son may have the same “honor” that the Father is given. Those that do not “honor the Son” do not “honor the Father” (John 5:22-23). The Father and Son deserve equal honor because they are equal.

In addition to Jesus’ argument for His relation with the Father, the Son provides the detail of His divine mission noting that the Father has “sent” Him (John 5:23-24, 30, 36-38).[55] “In light of John 5, certain passages where the Son comes from the Father are suggestive of the Son's eternal generation.”[56] The book of John portrays the Son as being “from” the Father. It is always the Father that sends, loves, and gives life to His Son since the Son is eternally (begotten) from the Father. This fact is nonreversible since it is, after all, the eternal generation of the Son not the Father. [57] That is why the Son receives life from the Father since He is from the Father. It is precisely because the Son is eternally begotten from the father “that the Son receives his personal subsistence form the Father.”[58] Jesus further notes that all who believe in Him will have “eternal life” (John 5:24). “Jesus shares what he has; he gives what he is. Jesus’s words give eternal life because he himself possesses limitless, unbounded life.”[59] The reason the Son can grant life to others is because He has life (John 5:26).

Now we approach John 5:26 which is among one of the more difficult verses to wrestle with in this chapter, especially in a post-enlightenment context where there is a desire to move away from reading the Bible theologically.[60] It is my opinion, that this verse has found such difficulty because eternal generation is left out of the conversation though it is a clear Johannine theme.[61] According to Carson, there are three major interpretations of John 5:26. The first group, which he notes is probably the view held by the majority of biblical scholars today which deny the phrase “life in himself” in verse 26 “has anything to do with divine self-existence,” such as J. Ramsey Michaels, Marianne Meye Thomson, and Raymond E. Brown. The second group are those who “tightly tie ‘life in himself’ used of God to ‘life in himself’ used of Jesus, and differentiate that reality form any notion of ‘life’ experienced by believers.” He lists primarily Rudolf Bultmann as the major contributor for this view. Lastly, the third group state that “the reference to the Father’s ‘life in himself’ is, in this context, that life that God alone experiences.” The final option is the classical and Biblical option since the life that the Triune God experiences “is bound up with his divine nature, his independence, his self-existence. The same life ‘in himself’ is possessed by the Son, who shares the Father's divine nature, independence, and self-existence.” [62] I will be appealing to the third option and expose my presupposition in my exegesis of this verse by interpreting this verse in light of the doctrine of eternal generation.

John’s Gospel contains a dynamic “life” motif where he uses the word “life” forty-seven times. The term ζωή (“life”) is used one hundred and thirty-two times in the New Testament and thirty-two times by John (1:4; 3:15, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:21, 24, 26, 29, 39, 40; 6:27, 33, 35, 40, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 63, 68; 8:12; 10:10, 28; 11:25; 12:25, 50; 14:6; 17:2, 3; 20:31), seventeen of these references are preceded with αἰώνιος (“eternal”). The term ψυχή is also used in John eight times (10:11, 15, 17, 25, 13:37, 38; 15:13). John is continuing the Old Testament theme of “life” with his monotheistic conviction of the “living God.” When John employs this life motif, he emphasizes two points: (1) Jesus is life, and (2) Jesus gives life.

In the prologue, John begins his description of Jesus before “the beginning” as the divine Logos (“Word”). He portrays the Logos as the Creator, the ultimate Life-giver of the universe, that has an intimate relation “with” God since He is God (John 1:1-3). After describing the Logos as the Creator, it follows that “in him was life” since He can only give what He Himself has (John 1:4). “God is life and as the life is the Life-Giver.”[63] The Logos giving “eternal life” to all who believe benefits the economy description, however, when the term is used to describe the Logos it is properly understood to be an ontological claim of the immanent Trinity. It is obvious that this description of the Logos having life does not solely describe the incarnation since the Logos has eternally possessed this life “with God.” John is saying, in essence, that Jesus is life since He gives life and He gives life because He is life.[64] That is why Jesus will later say in John 14:6, Ἐγώ εἰμι (“I am”) ἡ ζωή (“the life”).

For God to be life means that He is self-existent and self-sufficient, that is, He is “independent of all external dependence.”[65] In light of John 5:26, the text shows that the Son can do what the Father does, that is, divine acts. The Son possesses the divine nature and therefore has authority, can execute judgement, and resurrect the dead because He is a se (“of-Himself”), that is, He has “life in Himself.”[66] Webster has defined “aseity” as “life,” that is, “God’s life from and therefore in himself.” Interestingly, he ties this definition of life with eternal generation by identifying “this life” that God possess as “the relations of Father, Son and Spirit.”[67] It is for that reason that he says that aseity is the “fullness of personal relations,” it is “the perfection of paternity, filiation and spiration.” [68] All three persons are “a se according to essence.” However, from this text, it is evident that the Father is distinct from the other persons in that He is “a se according to person.”[69] That is why Jesus can properly say that “the Father has life in himself” and He can give “life” to His Son. “God is from himself, and from himself God gives himself.”[70] 

In verse 26, Jesus begins with the Father having life and then proceeds to affirm that He too has life, that is, the Father and the Son have the same kind of life.[71] However, what is most intriguing, and often overlooked, is how Jesus has life. The text does not say that the Son alone has life-in-himself; rather, the Son has life because the Father has life and He gives life to His Son. “The Father is a se in his person (as the principium of the triune life); the Son is a se only in his divine essence.”[72] This life that the Son possesses is imparted or “granted” (CSB, ESV, NIV) to Him by the Father.[73]

It should be noted it is not as if there was a time when the Son did not have life. Rather, the Father has eternally given life to the Son and the Son has eternally received life from the Father.[74] From this, it is clear that the Father and Son are equal, since both persons share the same divine life, and are distinct since there are distinctions made between their divine titles, Father and Son, as well as, the relations, the Father gives life and the Son is given life. Aside from the doctrine of eternal generation, there is no other plausible option available to distinguish the persons and relations of the divine persons. It is for that reason that this text is detrimental to the doctrine of the Trinity as it explains the divinity of the Son and His relation with the Father. The Son only has life because the Father has communicated life to Him. It is “the Father” that “produced the Son as living” and the Son is then said to be life itself.[75] However, “the Son has nothing unless it is begotten.”[76] Without eternal generation the Son is not the Son since He is not begotten from the Father to have life. “Divine generation implies that the Father begets the Son out of the being of the Father.”[77] If the Son is not begotten from the Father, then the Son no longer has life.

“The Son is God from himself although not the Son from himself.”[78] The Son is not the Son without the Father. This is because the Father “is the principle of all life.” Thus “as the Father is the cause of life, so also is his Son.”[79] This does not imply any generation in the Father. “The Father is not and never was ungenerative; he begins everlastingly.”[80] Although the Son is properly called “begotten,” the Father is “ungegotten” or “ingenerate.”[81] This means that “the Father is God in a mode of subsistence that communicates the divine nature eternally without change, imperfection, beginning, or end to establish unique, ordered, eternal relations that allow for differentiation and likeness. The Son and Spirit, then, are God in a mode of subsistence that receives the divine nature eternally by generation and spiration, respectively, without change, imperfection, beginning, or end.”[82] This is why the Father can “give” life to the Son. The Father alone begets and the Son alone is begotten.[83]

“The Father has given the Son to have life. As the Father has, so he has given.” Augustine believes that when Jesus says, “He has given to the Son” it is the equivalent of saying, “He begat a Son” because “the Father gave by begetting.” Further, “just as the Father gave the son to be, he also gave him to be life and he gave him to be life in himself.” [84] The term “generation or “begetting” is not to be confused with the term “making.” Augustine has suggested that “one of the ways in which ‘begetting’ can be distinguished from ‘making’ is by the absence from it of the contingencies and limitations of creaturely generation. The Father’s act of begetting the Son is… hyperphysical.”[85] The Creator-creature distinction must be upheld when interpreting the doctrine of eternal generation. “The Father is the Begetter” in a different way than human fathers, thus this begetting is “not in a corporeal manner.”[86] Since Jesus has claimed equality with the Father and the Son is generated from the Father, Augustine wrote that when the Father eternally begat the Son “an equal begot an equal; an eternal, an eternal.”[87] It is because “the Father has begotten the Son” that it may be said the Son is “his equal.”[88] The Son is not equal with the Father if He is not generated from the Father. John Webster says that the Son’s generation and consubstantiality are “inseparable” (Webster 35). Hilary of Poitiers explains why this is the case: “As the Father is inexpressible in that he is unbegotten; so the Son in that he is the only begotten cannot be expressed because he who is begotten is the image of the unbegotten.”[89] 

Conclusion

In light of John’s gospel, Jesus does claim to be eternally generated/begotten from the Father. There are many questions that arise after studying this ancient doctrine and one may be tempted to go beyond the Biblical data. However, as Athanasius has said, “it is not holy to venture such questions concerning the generation of the Son of God.”[90] It is important therefore to remain within the parameters set in Scripture. Though the eternal generation of the Son is an extremely difficult concept to grasp with the finite mind it is important to “leave it to God who alone most perfectly knows himself.”[91] While contemplating the divine nature, it is more efficient to be in awe of the mysteries of God rather than seeking to explain the unknown. That is why, in the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, “the begetting of God is to be honored by silence.”[92] The Bible reveals to us that Jesus is the “only begotten Son” that we may have believe in Him and have “eternal life” through Him (John 3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 6:40).

Appendix:

The Eternally Begotten (μονογενής) “Son” of the Father

The term μονογενής is used five times in the Johannine canon (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Charles Lee Irons notes that “traditionally, the five verses that speak of the Second Person of the Godhead as monogenes were understood as having reference to the uniqueness of the Son’s relationship to the Father, as one who is the ‘only begotten’ Son of the Father.”[93] However, more recently, the translation of μονογενής has been under review.  Most modern scholars argue that the correct rendering of μονογενής should be “one and only” not “only begotten.”[94] The reasoning is that μονογενής is etymologically derived from μὸνος + γένος (“one” + “kind”). Irons demonstrates two ways this argument is invalid.[95] First, etymology does not determine meaning because “words are to be determined by usage rather than etymology.” Second, the etymological evidence does not necessarily support their case and can suggest that μονογενής should be translated “only begotten.”[96]

Irons suggests that “the earliest meaning of monogenes was biological, in reference to an only child.”[97] In fact, it was often employed this way by the Eastern Greek fathers.[98] However, their usage of “only begotten” was not solely based upon the five times it is used in Johannine literature. In fact, it would be difficult to prove if that were the case. In addition, the church fathers’ doctrine of eternal generation was not built upon the term μονογενής. Instead, “the church fathers appealed to a number of passages in support of the eternal generation of the Son that would be understood rather differently by many modern exegetes.”[99] There are those who claim that the term μονογενής was employed as a result of the Arian controversy in the fourth-century, however, there is sufficient evidence to suggest pre-Arian usage of μονογενής as “only begotten” since both Justin Martyr, who wrote in Greek, and Tertullian, who wrote in Latin used μονογενής (Greek) or unigenitus (Latin) referenced Jesus being the “only begotten” Son of the Father.[100] Further, the debate among the Arians and pro-Nicenes was not whether or not Jesus was the “only begotten” Son, since both sides would affirm this to be true. Rather, they were concerned with whether this generation was eternal or temporal. In response to the Arian heresy, the Nicene creed affirms that the Son was “uncreated.”

Supposing that the proper translation were “one and only,” it is, as Irons notes, “difficult to see how the meaning ‘only’ or ‘one and only’ fits in a meaningful way unless the notion of sonship or begottenness is part of the meaning of the word.”[101] It is evident when John employs μονογενής in the prologue (John 1:14, 18) that he is using it in a “metaphorical biological sense” rather than a scientific sense.[102] However, the translators for the ESV and NIV will render the term scientifically and then supply the word “Son,” though it is not present in the Greek, even though it demands a metaphorical rendering. The reason for this, as Irons has noted, is that “the context is pushing the translators and the commentators in the right direction, almost against their will.”[103] After his strong criticism towards the NIV and ESV[104] translations of John 1:14 and 18, Irons concludes that “translating monogenes as ‘only’ and adopting the μονογενὴς θεὸς reading at John 1:18—do not comport with one another. Interpreters and translations have to tie themselves up in pretzels in order to harmonize them. It is better to choose one or the other.”[105] In an effort to be consistent, μονογενής should be translated “only begotten,” not only because of the historical usage of the term, but also the immediate context demands it. However, whether or not it is translated as “only begotten” or “one and only” does not affect the doctrine of eternal generation since there is still a “warrant for saying eternal generation signifies likeness.” Even if the term μονογενὴς is “understood to mean uniqueness” this would “require that the Father-Son relationship differ from the Father-Spirit relationship.”[106]

Irons concludes that though μονογενής may have different definitions, there is evidence to suggest that the earliest and biblical usage was “biological” or “familial.” It is not about the translation of the word, but the function (usage or application) of these words found within the immediate context. It is not necessarily about the particular word, μονογενής, but the words that surround it. “Its context is,” as Irons has suggested, “familial and filial every single time,” and “is applied to God.”[107] John will use the term biologically when describing the Father-Son relation. In light of this evidence, it is Biblical to use the title “only begotten” to describe the Son since the context suggests a familial application.

            In John’s gospel, the μονογενής reveals the unique “glory” (δόξαν) of God the Father (1:14). The beloved Son eternally dwelt in “the bosom of the Father,” but once He assumed human “flesh” and “dwelt among us,” the hidden glory of God was made visible (1:14; 18). The hypostatic union unveils the glory of God that the Son had with the Father “before the world existed” (17:5).[108] In sum, “the Word incarnate is a divine person who is simultaneously one with God and, as a consequence of the incarnation, one with human beings.”[109] In light of John 1:14 and 17:5, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Jesus’ relation with the Father as the “only begotten Son” is not restricted to the incarnation but to eternity. The Logos has always been and always will be the “only begotten Son” of God the Father for all eternity. Regardless of how μονογενής is translated, “the relevant claims about the Father-Son identities and relations remain intact whether or not begetting is conceptually integral to the Greek term’s biblical use.”[110]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Michael. “Divine Attributes.” Pages 57-77 in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic. Edited by Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016.

Anatolios, Khaled. Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.

Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Books 1-5. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2010.

            Summa Theologica. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Augustine, The Trinity. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2002.

Tractates on the Gospel of John. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1988.

Ayres, Lewis. “At the Origins of Eternal Generation: Scriptural Foundations and Theological Purpose.” Pages 149-162 in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

Augustine and the Trinity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

“Augustine on the Trinity.” Pages 123-137 in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity. Edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford Press University, 2004.

Barrett, Matthew. Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, And Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 2021.

Bauckham, Richard. “The Trinity and the Gospel of John.” Pages 91-117 in The Essential Trinity: New Testament Foundations and Practical Relevance. Edited by Brandon D. Crowe and Carl R. Trueman. New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2017.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation. Vol. 2. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

Bird, Michael and Scott Harrower, Trinity Without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology. Kregel Academic 2019.

Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John. Anchor Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.

Butner Jr., D. Glenn. “Eternal Functional Subordination and The Problem Of The Divine Will,” JETS 58/1 (2015): 131–49.

The Son Who Learned Obedience: A Theological Case Against the Eternal Submission of the Son. Pickwick Publications 2018.

Trinitarian Dogmatics: Exploring the Grammar of the Chrisitan Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Tran. Henry Beveridge. Peabody, MA. Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.

Carson, D.A. “John 5:26: Crux Interpretum for Eternal Generation.” Pages 79-97 in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

The Gospel according to John, PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Carter, Craig A. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.

Crowe, Brandon D. The Lord Jesus Christ: The Biblical Doctrine of the Person and Work of Christ. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2023.

Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on John. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. 2015.

Duby, Steven J. Jesus and the God of Classical Theism: Biblical Christology in Light of the Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022.

Giles Emery, The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Naples, Fla: Sapientia Press, 2005.

Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

Giles, Kevin. Jesus and the Father. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.

The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate (IVP Academic 2009), The ETS Response to Grudem and Ware, ETS paper presented November 15, 2016.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Hiliary Poitiers, On the Trinity. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2002.

Holmes, Stephen R. The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History, and Modernity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology For Pilgrims On The Way. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 2011.

Irons, Charles Lee. “A Lexical Defense of the Johannine “Only Begotten.” Pages 98-116 in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

Johnson, Keith E. “Eternal Generation in the Trinitarian Theology of Augustine.” Pages 163-179 in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

Jones, Brandon C. “The Unbegotten Son? A Defense of the Eternal Generation of the Son against the Arguments of Evangelicals Like John S. Feinberg.” 21 Nov. 2008, Grand Rapids, MI: ETS Annual Meeting, 1-15.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Scott R. Swain. Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel. NSBT. Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 2008.

Malone, Josh. “Eternal Generation: Pro-Nicene Pattern, Dogmatic Function, and Created Effects.” Pages 271-285 in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

Sanders, Fred. The Triune God. New Studies in Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 2016.

Swain, Scott R. “John.” Pages 177-218 in The Trinity in the Canon: A Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Practical Proposal. Edited by Brandon D. Smith. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2023.

“The Radiance of the Father’s Glory: Eternal Generation, the Divine Names, and Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 29-43 in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

The Trinity and the Bible: On Theological Interpretation. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2021.

Swain, Scott R. and Michael Allen. “The Obedience of the Eternal Son: Catholic and Reformed Christology.” Pages 74-95 in Christology: Ancient & Modern. Edited by Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on John. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.

Treier, Daniel. Lord Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2023.

Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Vol. 1. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1992.

Vidu, Adonis. The Same God Works All Things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021.

Ware, Bruce A. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. Wheaton: Crossway, 2005.

Ware, Bruce A. and John Starke, One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015.

Warfield, B.B. “Trinity” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. Chicago: Howard-Severance Company, 1915.

Webster, John. God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology. Vol. 1, God and the Works of God. London: T & T Clark, 2016.

Wellum, Stephen. God Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ. Wheaton, IL. Crossway, 2016.

Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, Volume 1. Brentwood, TN: B&H Publishing, 2024.

White, Thomas Joseph. The Trinity: On the Nature and Mystery of the One God. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022.

Whitfield, Keith S. Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019.

END NOTES

[1] The doctrine of eternal generation articulates how the Son is from the Father. Daniel Treier lists “four possible ways of being from the Father: (1) The world comes from God by creation, whereas the Son is ‘begotten, not made”; (2) the incarnate Son comes from God by the assumption of a human nature for his earthly mission; (3) other human beings who are united with Christ become children of God by regeneration; and (4) by an eternal procession the second person of the triune God is begotten from the first person as ‘God of God, light of light.’” (Lord Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2023), 55.

[2] John Webster, God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology. Vol. 1, God and the Works of God. (London: T & T Clark, 2016), 30.

[3] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Vol. 1. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1992), 292-293.

[4] D. Glenn Butner Jr., Trinitarian Dogmatics: Exploring the Grammar of the Chrisitan Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 47.

[5] Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, And Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 2021), 159.

[6] “Since the Father, Son, and Spirit share equally the same divine essence, they cannot be distinguished by divine attributes nor by a distinct will. Instead, they are only distinguished by their eternal ‘relations of origin’ within the divine essence and their own unique personal property.” (Stephen J. Wellum, Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, Volume 1. Brentwood, TN: B&H Publishing, 2024), 702.

[7] Butner, Trinitarian Dogmatics, 62.

[8] Fred Sanders, The Triune God. New Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 2016), 126.

[9] Thomas Aquinas argued that if there are processions in God then there are real relations of origin within the Triune God in Summa Theologica, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), I.28. See also, Giles Emery, The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (Naples, Fla: Sapientia Press, 2005), 78-102; Thomas Joseph White, The Trinity: On the Nature and Mystery of the One God (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022), 425-441.

[10] For more on Nicene Trinitarian theology and the departure from eternal generation, see Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford Press University, 2004); Stephen R. Holmes, The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History, and Modernity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012).

[11] Josh Malone, “Eternal Generation: Pro-Nicene Pattern, Dogmatic Function, and Created Effects” in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 271.

[12] Origen, Principles, 1.2.2.

[13] Lewis Ayres, “At the Origins of Eternal Generation: Scriptural Foundations and Theological Purpose” in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 150.

[14] Lewis Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), “Augustine on the Trinity” in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity. Edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

[15] Keith E. Johnson, “Eternal Generation in the Trinitarian Theology of Augustine” in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 164.

[16] Augustine, Trinity, 15.47.

[17] For more on the treatment of relational Trinitarian theology and the retrieval for classical trinitarian theism: Craig A. Carter, Contemplating God with the Great Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021).

[18] Popular proponents of this doctrine include Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1994) and Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005). For lack of space, I will not engage with the EFS controversy in this paper. However, for more on this debate: Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, And Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 2021), Michael Bird and Scott Harrower, Trinity Without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology (Kregel Academic 2019), D. Glenn Butner Jr., The Son Who Learned Obedience: A Theological Case Against the Eternal Submission of the Son (Pickwick Publications 2018), “Eternal Functional Subordination And The Problem Of The Divine Will,” JETS 58/1 (2015): 131–49, Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate (IVP Academic 2009), The ETS Response to Grudem and Ware, ETS paper presented November 15, 2016. Bruce A. Ware and John Starke, One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015); Keith S. Whitfield, Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019).

[19] Fred Sanders has provided notes alongside Warfield’s entry that are most inciteful to help recognize his departure: https://scriptoriumdaily.com/warfields-the-biblical-doctrine-of-the-trinity-annotated.

[20] Due to the influence of Warfield, most modern theologians, as Sanders notes, “concede that there are three eternal persons in the Godhead, named in Scripture Father, Son, and Spirit, but contend that to go beyond this and affirm such acts in the Godhead as generation and spiration is to go beyond the record.” (Triune God, 128).

[21] Scott R. Swain, The Trinity and the Bible: On Theological Interpretation (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2021), 34.

[22] B.B. Warfield, “Trinity,” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol. V. Edited by James Orr (Chicago: Howard-Severance Co.,1915), 3020.

[23] Warfield, “Trinity,” 3020.

[24] Swain, The Trinity and the Bible, 46.

[25] Swain, The Trinity and the Bible, 47.

[26] Swain, The Trinity and the Bible, 48.

[27] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 488-489. For a thorough critique of Feinberg’s view, consult Brandon C. Jones’ “The Unbegotten Son? A Defense of the Eternal Generation of the Son against the Arguments of Evangelicals Like John S. Feinberg.”

[28] Feinberg, No One Like Him, 489.

[29] Feinberg, No One Like Him, 489.

[30] Jones, “The Unbegotten Son?” 13.

[31] Feinberg, No One Like Him, 492.

[32] Feinberg believes that the doctrine was never required. In reference to the Eastern and Western controversy over the term “filioque,” Feinberg believes that “the split was totally unnecessary” since there are “no grounds” for a controversy (No One Like Him, 492).

[33] Scott R. Swain, “The Radiance of the Father’s Glory: Eternal Generation, the Divine Names, and Biblical Interpretation” in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 30.

[34] Scott R. Swain argues that there are four ways that John’s gospel demonstrates the divine oneness of the Son with the Father: 1. Jesus shares the divine name (s), 2. Jesus possesses divine attributes, 3. Jesus preforms divine works, 4. Jesus is worthy of divine honor. (“John” in The Trinity in the Canon: A Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Practical Proposal. Ed. Brandon D. Smith. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2023), 195-196.

[35] Hiliary Poitiers, On the Trinity, 7.17.

[36] Hiliary Poitiers, On the Trinity, 9.44.

[37] Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on John, 2.5.18.

[38] Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 2.8.68.

[39] Stephen Wellum, God Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ (Wheaton, IL. Crossway, 2016), 162.

[40] Wellum, God Incarnate, 160-163; Carson, John, 250-255.

[41] Scott R. Swain and Michael Allen, “The Obedience of the Eternal Son: Catholic and Reformed Christology” in Christology: Ancient & Modern. Ed. Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 74-95.

[42] Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 20.8.1-2.

[43] Adonis Vidu. The Same God Works All Things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021), 1.

[44] Source lost.

[45] Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on John, 2.15.19. “It is impossible for the Son to take independent, self-determined action that would set him over against the Father as another God, for all the Son does is both coincident with and coextensive with all that the Father does.” (Carson, John, 250)

[46] Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4.5.60.

[47] Basil the Great, On the Spirit, 8.19.

[48] Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 21.2.

[49] “Consubstantial means the Son is equal to the Father in every way, from the same essence or substance as the Father, no less divine than the Father.” (Barrett, Simply Trinity, 162)

[50] The Son is only coequal with God the Father if He is begotten from the Father— “True God from true God.”

[51] Vidu, The Same God Works All Things, 39.

[52] Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2.6.

[53] Wellum, God Incarnate, 160-161.

[54] Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 2.12.100.

[55] For more on the Son’s mission in John: Andreas J. Köstenberger and Scott R. Swain, Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel. NSBT (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 2008), 149-164.

[56] Steven J. Duby, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism: Biblical Christology in Light of the Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 55.

[57] Carson, “John 5:26”, 92.

[58] Brandon D. Crowe, The Lord Jesus Christ: The Biblical Doctrine of the Person and Work of Christ (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2023), 208.

[59] R.B. Jamieson and Tyler R. Wittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 220.

[60] Raymond Brown, for example, says that “the of life by Father and Son was used in patristic times as an anti-Arian argument. However, ‘life’ here does not refer primarily to the internal life of the Trinity, but to a creative life-giving power exercised toward men.” In other words, this understanding was a norm among the church fathers but the reference to “life” is really about the economic trinity, “creative life-giving power exercised toward men,” rather than the immanent trinity or the “internal life of the Trinity.” (Raymond E. Brown, John I-XII, 251).

[61] Many modern New Testament commentators overlook the implications of eternal generation, however, there are a few who have acknowledged this fact (Carson, John, 257; Köstenberger, John, 189).

[62] D.A. Carson, “John 5:26: Crux Interpretum for Eternal Generation” in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Ed. Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 80-82.

[63] Köstenberger, Theology of John, 284. Michael Horton has emphasized that this “life” is “predicated properly of God; only analogically can we say that God lives and we live. In other words, there is no such thing as life that can be predicated of God and humans univocally. God is life; he gives us life.” Furthermore, “Creatures live, but God is life – and he has this lie in himself. God is always the donor’ creatures the beneficiaries.” (Michael Horton The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology For Pilgrims On The Way. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 2011. 231, 234).

[64] Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 22.8.2.

[65] Michael Horton, Christian Faith, 230.

[66] Aseity is an incommunicable attribute of God that not only speaks to the immanent Trinity but also the economic.

[67] Webster, God Without Measure, 19.

[68] Webster, God Without Measure, 19.

[69] Webster, God Without Measure, 20. Similarly, Michael Allen writes, “The Father and Son share the property of having ‘life in himself,’ yet the Father has it of himself while the Son has this property receptively from the Father. Aseity is shared in common, yet it is possessed by each in his proper, personal way.” (“Divine Attributes” in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic. Ed. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 65-66.

[70] Webster, God Without Measure, 19.

[71] Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 2.11.

[72] Webster, God Without Measure, 37.

[73] John Calvin finds difficulty in affirming eternal generation in light of God’s aseity noting that “whosoever says that the Son has been given his essence from the Father denies that he has being from himself.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion. Tran. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA. Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 1.13.23.    

[74] Aquinas, John, 288.

[75] Aquinas, John, 288.

[76] Hiliary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 4.10.

[77] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation. Vol. 2. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 2:309.

[78] Turretin, Institutes, 1:292.

[79] Aquinas, John, 287; ST, 1.33.1.

[80] RD, 2:310.

[81] John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, I.8.

[82] Butner, Trinitarian Dogmatics, 72.

[83] “Generation is the personal act of God the Father – that which the Father does qua Father, not as one who shares in the common divine essence.” (Webster, God Without Measure, 31)

[84] Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 22.10.3-4.

[85] Webster, God Without Measure, 34.

[86] Gregory of Nazianzus, Third theological Oration, XXIX.2.

[87] Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 20.8.1-2.

[88] Augustine, Trinity, 1.29.

[89] Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity, 3.18.

[90] Athanasius, C. Ar. 2.36.

[91] Turretin, Institutes, 302.

[92] Gregory Nazianzus, On the Son, 8.

[93] Charles Lee Irons, “A Lexical Defense of the Johannine “Only Begotten” in Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 99. Irons states that “my claim is not that monogenes always means ‘only begotten’ and never means ‘only one of its/ his kind’ in biblical and extrabiblical Greek.” (105) Rather, his claim “is that monogenes used most basically infrequently in reference to an only child begotten by a parent, with the implication of not having any siblings. A base/profile analysis puts the term in a biological familial context. It presupposes a biological relationship between a parent and his or her only son or daughter.” (106)

[94] The translation of μονογενής was not questioned until B.F. Westcott’s commentary on John was published in 1886 which then led to Francis Marion Warden’s dissertation in1938 which influence the 1952 Revised Standard Version’s translation where they rendered μονογενής as “only.” Since this translation’s debut, most modern translations have abandoned the “begottenness” of μονογενής and traded it for “only” (ESV, NRSV, RSV) and “one and only” (CSB, NIV, NLT). Surprisingly, Irons has noted that “scholars who maintain the traditional doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son in most respects do not appeal to monogenes in support of it,” (101) namely, because they have abandoned all hope of translating this word as “only begotten” (ASV, KJV, NKJV, NASB).

[95] Irons’ contribution has been most influential in modern scholarship. For example, when writing his commentary on John, Carson appeals to the NIV as “a little closer to what is meant” (The Gospel according to John, 128). However, upon reading an early draft of Irons work, Carson was persuaded that “under the most optimistic reading of his work, the restoration of the meaning ‘only begotten’ drives reflection on the generation of the Son, but not, by itself, on the eternal generation of the Son.” (“John 5:26: Crux Interpretum for Eternal Generation,” 90)

[96] Irons, “Only Begotten,” 105.

[97] Irons, “Only Begotten,” 105.

[98] Irons, 99-100. The TLG (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae) reveals the usage of μονογενής among the Greek church fathers, namely: Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Didymus the Blind, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius of Salamis, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory of Nazianzen. The term μονογενής was used a total of 240 times.

[99] Irons, “Only Begotten,” 98.

[100] Irons, “Only Begotten,” 102.

[101] Irons, “Only Begotten,” 112.

[102] Irons, “Only Begotten,” 122.

[103] Irons, “Only Begotten,” 113.

[104] Irons finds a serious issue with the ESV’s handling of μονογενής going so far as to say it was “extremely problematic.”

[105] Irons, “Only Begotten,” 115.

[106] Butner, Trinitarian Dogmatics, 67.

[107] Barrett, Simply Trinity, 187-188.

[108] Richard Bauckham, “The Trinity and the Gospel of John” in The Essential Trinity: New Testament Foundations and Practical Relevance. Ed. Brandon D. Crowe and Carl R. Trueman (New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2017), 101.

91-117

[109] Swain, “John,” 188.

[110] Treier, Lord Jesus Christ, 57.