Eternal Generation of the Son

There are many doctrines in the Old and New Testament scriptures. There are doctrines which are mentioned in the scriptures, but which were not part of the teaching of the apostles. One example of this is the reference (I Corinthians 15:29) by the apostle Paul to mistaken practice of some who were baptized for the dead. Some of these doctrines span from a virtual to an actual practice.

Sometimes, as for example in the case of sacrifice, the actual practice involves animal sacrifice while the virtual sacrifice, though by no means less real, of the disciple of Jesus is  to surrender his or her life totally to the Lord Jesus who is their savior. Another example of a doctrine is baptism. Whether one’s examination of the doctrine of baptism began with the baptism of Naaman, the Syrian, seven times in the Jordan River or the baptism of John, the baptism of Jesus himself, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, baptism for forgiveness of sins all of these, despite their differences, have one simple point in common: obedience. One last example is the doctrine concerning the coming of the Lord. It is neither more nor less important for the disciple in terms of the understanding of how he is to submit in obedience to Jesus as Lord and Savior.

These are merely three examples of sacrifice, baptism and the coming of the Lord, with the exclusion of the false doctrine of baptism for the dead, illustrate doctrines which span from the virtual to the actual practice and from the Old Testament to the New Testament scriptures. These doctrines and many others are found in the scriptures. Some with more detail than others. All are capable of being misunderstood and wittingly or unwittingly being misunderstood and which can subsequently result in a false or erroneous doctrine being taught.

eternal generation of the Son

The doctrine, or so-called doctrine, of eternal generation of the Son is not in the any of the above categories. Here is an excellent article on this doctrine. [1] [2] [3] [4] I encourage you to read it. There is an abundance of articles available. They reflect the same fundamentals of this doctrine and cite and quote most of the same sources. Basically, the doctrine purports to uphold the eternal generation of the Son. Clearly, the eternal aspect of this generation is to assert the truth of the existence of the Son, that is, Jesus before he came into the world and before the existence of the world.

None of this constitutes a doctrinal problem or even a heresy. The doctrine of eternal generation of the Son is not necessarily a false doctrine. Rather, it is a pointless and needless doctrine. It is an academic exercise begotten by men. Yet, there is a question which emerges and it is one which is untouched and circumvented by those whose scholarly works on this doctrine abound. The question and answer have historically unnerved the saints in Christ as well as scholars and theologians.

Arius

Arius (c. AD 256–336) was opposed to the doctrine of the apostles as revealed in the scriptures concerning the deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Specifically, Arius was opposed to the doctrine which asserts Jesus as being deity. Subsequently, he was labeled as a heretic following the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Although much of what we know of what Arius taught is limited to secondary sources which referred to his teachings it is not difficult to reason and trace back a fundamental tenet of his erroneous teaching. Arius denied the deity and pre-existence of Jesus; the latter of which has much consumed scholars and theologians with little clarification and less edification for the saints in Christ.

John, Elijah and pre-existence

Actually, God in his infinite wisdom provided for our learning a much overlooked, clear, hands-on experience and testimony of pre-existence. The experience was of John the baptist. The testimony was from Jesus himself when he declared that John was Elijah, the prophet. Elijah had preexisted centuries prior to the birth and appearance of John. This was not a reincarnation. Elijah did not die. He was taken up into the heavens before of eyes of his disciple Elisha. It is a simple primer lesson in pre-existence, not eternal existence or eternal pre-existence of Elijah as John. Therefore, it seems more than a mere peculiarity that immediately following the apostle John’s Prologue in chapter one on the eternal, pre-existent Word, the logos, that John the baptist appears along with the speculative, contemplative question from the priests and Levites who were sent to him: are you Elijah?

It is not difficult to surmise the likely and probable principal behind Arius’ denial of Jesus. Today the teaching of Arius is echoed by the disciples, namely, the so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims and so-called unitarians. Here is the seemingly all-disarming question, often with a snicker, to the claim of the believer that Jesus is God: Are you saying that God died? The travesty here is the lack of knowledge and confidence by many disciples. They are not alone. Scholars and theologians are right there among them. This is the question which ancient and modern scholars and theologians circumvent. The so-called scholarly and wordy doctrine of eternal generation of the Son is a circumvention of that question. Whether or not that doctrine itself generated it the fact is that the shields itself behind these two familiar claims made by Christians, namely, the claim of the scriptures that Jesus is fully God and the extra-biblical man-made claim that Jesus is fully man.

Jesus, as a man, fully man

I readily understand, believe and teach that Jesus is fully God. I am also aware of the references by Jesus to himself as a man. (John 8:40) I am also aware of the apostle Paul’s reference to Jesus as a man. (I Timothy 2:5) Do these references represent teaching points about a human Jesus or do they represent both Jesus and Paul willingness to engage with people on their common knowledge and perception that Jesus was just another human being? Jesus did not cater to the Muslim and other so-called unitarians inexorable cry so memorably uttered by Philip: Just show us the Father. Actually, their cry is more like: Just tell us you are God. Yet, how many times did Jesus find himself declaring over and over even at his mock trial the things which he had said openly and multiple times. Yet, they did believe or accept it and if they did believe it because they heard it and saw with their own eyes (" But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done." John 11:46) they still chose to reject the truth.

The fact that they did not understand his words or that they rejected his words was not reason for Jesus or Paul to change their message. It is Paul who makes the distinct clarification concerning Jesus in his letter to the Philippians. (2:7, 8) Jesus, Paul asserts, took on the form of a servant, made in the likeness of man and being found in appearance as a man all of which are significant points that are blithely overlooked too often. A form, likeness and appearance of a man does not constitute a man. The external, outward appearance of Jesus was that of a man, although he was not a man. Why then would Paul refer to Jesus as a man? In Ephesus, where Timothy was located and where Paul had ministered for two years the man Jesus as mediator and savior stood in stark contrast to the female cult of Artemis (Acts 19) who throughout Asia was touted as the savior of women through childbirth. Paul proclaimed Jesus, unlike Artemis who touted herself as savior of women, as being the savior, not just of women or of men, but of all mankind. So, why did Christians and the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son resort to the expression of Jesus as “fully man” which no more appears in the scriptures than the doctrine which purports to uphold his eternal existence? Whether or not the expression of "fully man" was co-generated along with the doctrine or it emerged as a necessary appendage it is a vital part of the claims of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.

God cannot die

The reason for the dependence on the expression of Jesus as being "fully man" is that despite all of the Christian’s’ claims that death is not the end the truth is that when it comes to Jesus, that is, God, they can not fathom this blunt, inexorable and undeniable and glorious truth: God died. Of course, this is the fodder of Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses and so-called unitarians prompts this retort from them: God cannot die. Says who? Hence, the Sunday morning Bible study weak assertion that it was “the human part of Jesus that died.” However, no matter how much they might sincerely and intellectually deny this about death the truth is that just as equally sincere and emotionally they live in the fear of death. Yet, what greater display of his sovereignty and power could God demonstrate than to, not merely restore life to a human (like numerous prophets) being like Lazarus, but that he himself, the Creator, Giver and Sustainer of life should lay down his own life and after three days take up his life again? This is the declaration of the writer in Hebrews 2:14, 15. God died. God did not remain dead. Amen! Hallelujah!

You have likely heard the question. Who was in control of the universe if God died? This question neglects another assertion and doctrine parroted, even if not understood by Christians, of God as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. What is three days in the grave but less than the twinkling of an eye for a God who is outside of time and space?

conclusion

There are many doctrines in the Bible for us to understand and teach. They are relevant and necessary, some unto the salvation of the believer, others unto the edification of the believer. This doctrines are capable of being misunderstood. If the apostle Paul himself was sometimes misunderstood on his teaching why would we expect any differently for ourselves? The so-called doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is neither of these because it is as pointless as it is needless.

This is not to say it is a false doctrine. This is not to label or malign those who write and expend their time on it as heretics. It is to say that there is a reason why the doctrine was begotten by men. It circumvents, even by its seemingly passing, casual reference to Jesus as “fully God” and “fully man” the age old fear of death which needlessly and pointlessly still haunts some saints. The doctrine of eternal generation of the Son, while not false, does nothing to build up the knowledge and confidence of the saints concerning the futile power of death in the hands of God. Jesus came into the world and asserted that death, that is, the ruler of this world (John 14:30) had no power over him and that he would lay down his life and take it up again.