Eternally Begotten and Psalms 2:7

food4thought · Jan 12, 2019

Hi Jonaitis! Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Jonaitis said:
The Son was begotten before time, not in time.

OK... how does that line up with the NT's use of Psalms 2:7?

I was actually discussing this issue with my high school friend, who is Muslim, and she was debating with me how being the Son of God is the same thing as being God. I first quoted C.S. Lewis on what it means to be begotten in the following:

"We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set – or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive. Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.” (Mere Christianity)

Very good explanation in my opinion, I couldn’t find one better. So, to beget is to bring forth another of the same kind. So, unless you're Adam or Eve, you were begotten by a man and conceived by a woman, thus you are a human after the likeness of your father. This is important to understand, because "Son" doesn’t mean that God created another deity, nor does it mean that his Son is a lesser deity.

That was helpful, but doesn't begotten imply a beginning?

Now, if God is self-existent, eternal, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, and infinite, then we must agree that it is utterly impossible for him to create another such being, otherwise it wouldn’t be self-existent, eternal, unchanging since it went from non-being to being. Nor would it be all-powerful if it came out of another, neither all-knowing if at one time it didn’t know anything, etc, etc. We find a passage in Isaiah that speaks of such a thing:

"Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me" (Isaiah 43:10)

This is a most true statement. There can only be one God who is in essence eternal and perfect in all his attributes. If God were to create, as mentioned in the quote above, it would be made into something entirely different than himself. It would be a part of his creation, rather than something of his essence. You aren’t a part of God, you are a creature of made by God, created as another kind of being than himself.

Totally agree.

However, when we encounter words from the Lord Jesus who says he is the only begotten Son of God, and that he was before Abraham, and that he shared in the glory with his Father before the world existed, then we are to understand that he isn’t something created. Remember, a creature is not the same kind as the Creator, but if God has begotten another it would be conclusively the same kind as himself. What does this actually mean then? If God is eternal of his kind, then the Son is in essence eternal in his kind. If God is perfect, then so must his begotten be perfect. If God is one God, then his Son must be of that one. As stated before, God cannot produce another God. It must then be that the Son is Very God as his Father is Very God. Yet, because there is a relationship between the two, it must mean then that they are two subsist of the same divine nature.

I agree, but how can Christ be both begotten (implying a beginning) and eternal. Remember, I am not arguing against the eternal nature of the Word, just trying to reconcile the NT usage of Psalms 2:7 with the idea that He was "eternally begotten".

If you follow the line of thinking behind Jesus’ words, he is essentially saying, “I am God of God, the same in essence and power and being as my Father, eternal and not made.” You cannot interpret his words in any other way. A son shares the same kind of nature as his Father, and if his Father is the One God, he must necessarily be the One God. Here are some passages that draws this out:

"Philip said to him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in Me does his works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, or else believe on account of the works themselves’ (John 14:8-11).

~ and ~

“So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, ‘How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.’ Jesus answered them, ‘I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’ The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God’ (John 10:24-33).

Absolutely! Christ is God of very God, eternal and not created. His humanity did have a beginning, but not His Divine nature.

Eternal Generation has no beginning, because the relationship had no beginning.

The word "generation", again, implies a beginning, doesn't it? This is why I am wrestling with the Nicene Creed. I am fine with Scripture, which seems to imply Jesus' begottenness as applying to either His human nature (at the Incarnation), His being "begotten" from the dead (at the resurrection), or, perhaps, His coronation as King in heaven shortly thereafter. I am most comfortable with it referring to His Incarnation. To say He was eternally (no beginning) begotten (implying a beginning) requires some serious mental gymnastics, IMO.

Jesus was made, but not begotten according to his humanity; begotten, but not made according to his divinity.

I follow your explanation, but the NT usage of Psalms 2:7 indicates that Jesus was begotten at a specific point in time.

I hope this helps.

You did help a bit. I am sorry if I come across as adversarial, which is not my intent. I certainly don't want to be at odds with the Nicene Creed... it's just that I can't reconcile the idea that something can be both eternal (no beginning) and begotten (implying a beginning), particularly given that, as far as I can see, the Scripture does not require any such belief. Reconciling the NT usage of Psalms 2:7 with the Creed would go a long way towards helping me resolve this conflict.

Thank you again for your insightful post! God bless;
Michael

food4thought · Jan 12, 2019

WherevertheWindblows said:
Okay, I am trying this again

God raising up a Savior is mentioned here

Acts 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus

Just as it shows God will raise them up a Prophet is shown here also

Deut 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

John 12:49 confirms Jesus Christ speaking by commandment just as in John 5:46 Moses writings of him are confirmed as speaking of Christ Acts 7:37, & Hebrews 3:5

All of which was not speaking of raising Christ up from the dead is what I was pointing out.

However, in Acts 13:33 it speaks of God raising Jesus up again but not in the context of what is shown in Moses (in the above) but in the context of the resurrection.

Acts 13:33 God has fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that
he has raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, (Psalm 2:7) Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

See Hebrews 5:5-6 which mentions the same thing but adds to it, "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. Hebrews linking in the two as it relates to the Son raised from the dead as well as being made a priest for ever which is not after the order of Aaron (of the earthly priesthood) which is why if he were on earth he should not be a priest.

Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

He is the first begotten of the dead Revelation 1:5. I am "he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore" made a priest for ever. But again, If he were on earth he would not be a priest. He was made a priest by the oath of God (not after the order of Aaron) but after the order of Melchizedek. Our Lord springing out of Judah wouldn't mean much when it come to what Moses said concerning that tribe and the priesthood. And as we know as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he himself likewise took part of the same. He was made a little lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering of death (whom God raised up again) and crowned with glory and honor. Earlier I was just pointing out being raised up is shown twofold, one as unto Israel as a Savior who would speak what was commanded him (as Moses shows it) Moses being a faithful servant for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after as Hebrews 3:5 shows it, and John 5:46 also. Acts 13:33 shows that God had to fulfill the second Psalm (which he did) in the raising Jesus up (again) from the dead. The gospel basically...

Another poster was irked by the word "made" but my translation shows a few "made's" as it pertains to Christ, but they don't bother me

I have, God sent his Son, made of a woman made under the law... just as Galatians 4:4 says the Word was made flesh or John 1:14 Christ was made of the seed of David since he "took upon himself" such. Romans 1:3 he took upon himself the seed of Abraham ... he was made in the likeness of men Philippians 2:7 Not taking upon himself the nature of Angels (which die not) Luke 20:36 but rather, he was made lower than the Angels (flesh and blood) for the very suffering of death. Again, the gospel, which speaks of his death, and resurrection, by which he is declared the Son of God with power, Jesus Christ the first begotten from the dead (this day). God made him both Lord and Christ Acts 2:36 and a high priest for ever by the oath and calling of God.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

Psalm 110:1 Points to the resurrection also just as in Acts 2:34 quotes the same Psalm stating in verse 31 that David (there) seeing this before was speaking of the resurrection of Christ. And this Jesus hath God raised up which is also in accord with Acts 13:33 which speaks of God raising Jesus again in respects to the fulfillment of the second Psalm also. Hebrews 5:5-6 seems to tie in being made a high priest (not after the order of Aaron) and the day he is begotten again (from the dead) as speaking of the same time. "Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee" Revelation 1:5 ... Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead... Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Directly related to that context, next verse

Heb 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

So again, If he were on earth he should not be a priest (especially after the order he was called) given our Lord sprang from Judah Heb 7:14 of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood. Hebrews ties in Jesus made a high priest (after the order of Melchisedec) with God declaring the day he had begotten him (which I believe is speaking of his being begotten from the dead there) even as he is declared the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead being the first begotten of the dead.

I am sort of a mess when it comes to presenting stuff but thats the jist of how I am catching it.

So you see the NT usage of Psalms 2:7 as referring to His resurrection? That does make some sense, particularly given Acts 13:33. I'll have to chew on that idea a bit...

Jonaitis · Jan 19, 2019

food4thought said:
...doesn't begotten imply a beginning?

No, it doesn't have to imply that. It just implies sharing the nature of the one begetting. This is why the doctrine is called 'eternal generation,' there wasn't a time when the Father and the Son began or initiate that relationship. Whereas, we are conceived and begotten, the Son was only begotten eternally. He was conceived only through incarnation.

Psalm 2:7 can be taken to be understood an analogy of that relationship, rather than a literal discussion between the two co-eternal consubstantial persons. Remember when Jesus said that the Son cannot do anything except what he sees the Father do? This is divine analogy of something in his relation to God. There wasn't a time when the Father healed anyone, or performed any of the miracles Christ performed, before his Son did he? So too, this is analogical language of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. The same goes for the discussion later on in that chapter where the Father promises to give as an inheritance the nations, this is spoken for our limitations in understanding the eternal decree between the Trinity in eternity past.

Knee V · Jan 21, 2019

I have always read that verse in Psalm 2 with the idea that it is always "today" for someone who is eternal, and thus Christ is always being begotten.

I look at it this way: when one candle lights another candle, it is not creating new fire out of nothing. The second flame comes forth from the first flame, and what that second flame is is the same as what the first flame is. And if you keep both wicks together, you simultaneously have one flame and two flames (and the same is true for three flames).

So I read Psalm two as if it's describing something similar to one candle eternally lighting another candle, where the second flame is eternally being lit by the first flame in a constant eternaly action.

WherevertheWindblows · Jan 21, 2019

food4thought said:
So you see the NT usage of Psalms 2:7 as referring to His resurrection? That does make some sense, particularly given Acts 13:33. I'll have to chew on that idea a bit...

Yes, especially when following along through what is being discussed there. Which is basically the gospel of Jesus Christ. Right before it he is speaking of his death (of the one God raised up as a Prophet unto Israel). These also fulfilling the scriptures in condemning him (asking that he be slain) and following the same context it goes into taking his body down from the tree (then his burial) and what follows (which is them touching down on what the second Psalm was about) which God had to fulfill. Which I believe it is speaking of concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ (where it speaks of God raising him up from the dead). It just follows the order of events the apostles are touching upon there (following his death). So there I believe his being begotten there is speaking of being begotten from the dead (in respects to this particular day recorded in the Psalm). Speaking of God having fulfilled this Psalm in the raising up of Christ as is being spoken of there. It just agrees in that context which is also the gospel and the message they were to preach.

Sorry it took me so long to respond.

food4thought · Jan 23, 2019

Hi again, Jonaitis. Sorry it took so long to reply.

Jonaitis said:
No, it doesn't have to imply that. It just implies sharing the nature of the one begetting.

I did a word search on the word translated "begotten", and everywhere else it is used it is obvious that there is a beginning (Matthew 1; Matthew 2:1; Luke 1:35; John 3; etc.). These passages show that the Bible declares the Incarnation of Jesus to be the point where Jesus was "begotten".

This is why the doctrine is called 'eternal generation,' there wasn't a time when the Father and the Son began or initiate that relationship. Whereas, we are conceived and begotten, the Son was only begotten eternally. He was conceived only through incarnation.

I agree that the Father and the Word existed in relationship from all eternity, but the Bible seems to imply that Jesus' Sonship may have begun at a specific point in time (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5). Again, these passages indicate that Jesus was also "begotten" from the dead.

Psalm 2:7 can be taken to be understood an analogy of that relationship, rather than a literal discussion between the two co-eternal consubstantial persons. Remember when Jesus said that the Son cannot do anything except what he sees the Father do? This is divine analogy of something in his relation to God. There wasn't a time when the Father healed anyone, or performed any of the miracles Christ performed, before his Son did he?

God has been working miracles from the beginning (Adam, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc.). Perhaps when Jesus spoke of only doing what He saw the Father do, He was referring to those miracles.

So too, this is analogical language of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. The same goes for the discussion later on in that chapter where the Father promises to give as an inheritance the nations, this is spoken for our limitations in understanding the eternal decree between the Trinity in eternity past.

I don't think I fully understand your argument here... sorry.

food4thought · Jan 23, 2019

Hi, Knee V. Thanks for replying!

Knee V said:
I have always read that verse in Psalm 2 with the idea that it is always "today" for someone who is eternal, and thus Christ is always being begotten.

I look at it this way: when one candle lights another candle, it is not creating new fire out of nothing. The second flame comes forth from the first flame, and what that second flame is is the same as what the first flame is. And if you keep both wicks together, you simultaneously have one flame and two flames (and the same is true for three flames).

So I read Psalm two as if it's describing something similar to one candle eternally lighting another candle, where the second flame is eternally being lit by the first flame in a constant eternaly action.

But why use the word "today", then? Why not say "I have eternally begotten you"?

Search

Search

Eternally Begotten and Psalms 2:7

food4thought

Loving truth

More options

food4thought

Loving truth

More options

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria

More options

Knee V

It's phonetic.

More options

WherevertheWindblows

Well-Known Member

More options

food4thought

Loving truth

More options

food4thought

Loving truth

More options

Similar threads