Begotten In These Latter Days

Mark A. Smith

13 hours ago8 min read

begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to our humanity

Beginning with the phrase “begotten,” we come to the controversial matter of the historical precedent. I must break away from this precedent for conscience sake. This is because I don’t believe “begotten” is illustrating nor teaching an eternal generation before time but is speaking in human terms because of the weakness of our flesh (Rom.6:19). Also, the Scripture is evident that when God speaks on it, He is correlating it to the reference of time, saying, “For to which of the angels did He ever say: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You?’, and again: ‘I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son?’” (Heb.1:5). So first, let’s begin exegetically with this text and then move on to the question how Jesus eternally proceeds from the Father, not by generation but as the Word, so that He comes to the OT prophets as a preincarnate Angel and not as the incarnate Son (Jdg.2:1; 13:18).

The first hurdle is the verb “begotten.” The Greek is in the perfect tense and active voice of the first person. But the verb action begins with “Today” as the reference point for the beginning of the verb action. So this is not an eternal generation of sorts but is specific to a point and place in time of the material creation itself. The perfect tense represents not the beginning, however, but the completion of the action (Ps.2:7). Therefore, as this relates to “Today,” it means that this is the state or condition of the generation of His conception in the flesh for the duration of what is called “Today” (Heb.3:13). “Today” is a recurring theme of the author of Hebrews, and therefore, he is making a definitional precedent in terms of this word “Today.” The exhortation was to remind and encourage one another “daily” while it is still called “Today.” Therefore, the “it” correlates the term to the days of the week, and the days are called evil (Pr.15:15; Eph.5:16; Ecc.8:12), but the reminder is that the church is under grace to redeem the time through Christ’s gift (Col.4:5-6; 2Cor.5:17-6:2). So the term “Today,” according to this theme, is referring to the appointed time and seasons that Christians are walking in the life of the Redeemer in the evil days of our life in the body, for Christ’s whole life is completed in this one word “begotten” in association with the term “Today” as He alone reconciles us through His blood (Rom.5:10; Mk.15:34).

Jesus Christ was on a divine schedule of appointments in his daily encounters living among us (Isa.7:14; Matt.1:23). This is why the next phrase, “I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son,” is in the future tense and middle voice, which could also be translated, “I will continue to be into Him, Father, and He shall continue to be into Me, Son” (Jn.14:10-11). But this generation is all for the sake of creation (Jn.12:28-30), for He has always been face to face with God as God (Jn.1:1-2). There was no generation (as Father into Son and Son into Father) before the Word became flesh. The Word was with God, and the Word was God in the beginning. There was no confession of generation in the Spirit before there was a confession of the generation of the flesh to speak to man in human terms (Rom.6:19; 8:3-4; Jn.14:28; 17:5; 1:1-2, 14; 4:24). Therefore, unto us a son was born that we may be born of the Spirit (Jn.3:6-7; Isa.9:6-7). But for this, Jesus was begotten (in time), “while it is called Today,” so that we can be begotten of the incorruptible Word that proceeds incorruptibly from the Father (1Pet.1:3; 1Jn.4:9; 5:1; Ps.2:7-8), and for this reason the Word was made flesh (Heb.5:5). When does the Spirit apply the Father having “begotten” Jesus (as High Priest) in this context (Heb.5:5-11; Ps.2:7-8)? Jesus is God among us as the Word of God incarnate, but the eternal Word is an unchanging Word because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb.13:8; Isa.45:22-25; Phil.2:9-11). Therefore, Jesus didn’t change but assumed our nature by generation of the Father’s will who promised to watch over His Word and perform it (Matt.3:17; 17:5; Mk.9:7; Lk.3:22; 9:35; Jn.12:28-30; Isa.55:11; Ezk.12:25; 37:14).

Therefore, I cannot in good conscience submit and confess with the traditional Creed of precedent that states, “begotten before all ages according to the Godhead.” While I must and do confess that Jesus Christ is truly God with all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily (Col.1:19; 2:9), this “begottenness” (or presumed eternal generation) is not according to (a) Father and Son relationship before all the ages, for the Word testifies, “Today I have begotten You,” (Jn.3:12-13 (nkjv)). Therefore, this “begottenness” (or generation) can only be referring to His life in the flesh (Col.1:19-22; 1Jn.4:9; 1Pet1:3). Now, therefore, what does it mean that the Father sent His one and only begotten Son into the world (Jn.1:14, 18; 3:16, 18)? It only means that since Jesus is the only begotten of the world (Jn.10:7-9), this same Jesus is the only name under heaven through which a man can be saved (Jn.14:6; Acts 4:11-12). Our calling and election is exclusively in Him as the incorruptible seed of promise (Rom.9:6-9, 11-13; Jn.3:6; 1Cor.15:42, 45, 54; 1Pet.1:4, 23). Again, we observe this divine time schedule “while it is still called Today” (2Cor.5:14-17; 6:1-2; 13:4-8; 2Pet.1:10-11; Rom.8:28-30; Col.3:3; Heb.9:27-28; Jn.11:25-26).

Therefore, the Creed is more consistent with the remaining statement, “begotten [...] in these ‘latter days,’ for us and for our salvation, being born (generated) of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to our humanity.” Now, the term virgin is vital to understanding Christ’s origin, that He was not conceived of natural generation but the Spirit, which means He assumes Mary’s nature but remains the incorruptible seed as the Word of God made flesh. The incorruptible seed becomes two natures in one person through Mary’s natural and corruptible seed (Rom.8:3-4; 1Jn.4:2-3; 2Jn.7; Gen.3:15; Matt.1:20; Heb.2:14-18; Jn.1:14). This “begotten” glory is in contrast to the glory He shared with the Father from before the foundation of the world (or ‘before all ages’ as the Creed confesses) (Jn.17:5; Phil.2:5-8). But again, Jesus does not give up His incorruptible glory to assume flesh, but veils it under the Father’s testimony, which says, “Today I have begotten You” (Heb.10:19-22/emphasis:v.20). This is why I also appreciate the Creed at the same time that I can’t confess it in its entirety, but for some strange reason, the Creed doesn’t fail to mention “in these latter days.” Now, what does that mean except that Christ was “begotten” for the latter days of the history of creation? I’m not here to argue the original intent of the authors of the Creed because I’m not a master historian, but this Providentially does testify to at least some early thought that He was begotten in time as opposed to “before all ages.”

If “begotten” was to dogmatically mean that Christ was of an eternal generation, why even bother to attempt to insert “in these latter days” as though this generation doesn’t include His pre-incarnations of the “former days” (Lk.1:35; Rev.1:8; 21:6; 22:13)? Why doesn’t anywhere in the Old Testament Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible prophesy that He shall be called the “Son of God.” Why is this exclusively a New Testament revelation? Again, the only place we can presuppose that He shall be called the Son of God is in Psalm 2:7, but even there, the testimony is grammatically the same as “begotten according to the latter days.” So why wouldn’t the OT saints not be granted any spiritual sight to worship “the coming promised Seed” as “the Holy One” synonymously as “the Son of God” for their understanding in worship (Jn.4:19-26; Dt.18:15; Isa.43:3; Isa.40:25; Matt.17:5 Pr.9:10; 30:2-5; 1Cor.14:15)? The two other contexts that remotely suggest that the Holy One would have a Son into Father relationship is according to the Davidic covenant, where God says he will strike “the seed” with a rod “if he commits iniquity,” but this is speaking (in application) of “the former days” of the sons who did commit iniquity.

So that relationship is God’s relationship to Israel as a Father, which does “shadow” the picture of the true Son who commits no iniquity, and yet it pleases the Father to crush Him as the substitutional Son (Isa.53), but again this is due to “the former days of Israel’s iniquity,” so why wouldn’t the Creed equally confess this begottenness, meaning the eternal generation, of this same relationship for the former days? Is not Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever according to this “eternal generation?” So Jesus Christ was not begotten in the flesh to commit the iniquity of these former days according to this relationship, for He remained face to face with God as God unveiled (in the Spirit) (Isa.6:1-3; Matt.18:10; 2Cor.3:12-16; Jn.1:1-2), but coming in the flesh, He became veiled in His prayer life from the face of God (Ps.18:9-12; 22:1; Mk.15:33-34). But He was still the Mediator to them (in the former days) as the Holy One according to the function of the eternal and unchangeable Word (Jn.1:1-2). So then He is only begotten as (a) Son in time unto us (and for our sake) to demonstrate in the flesh His eternal mediation (Rom.3:25-26; 5:8; 1Jn.3:5, 8; 1Pet.1:20; 1Tim.3:16; Jn.17:6), according to the human terms for our understanding (Jn.14:21; Rom.3:5; 2Cor.4:10; Gal.3:1), for they could not see that His name is Wonderful as a pre-incarnate Angel of Yahweh apart from revealing Himself in the substitutionary sacrifice (Mk.12:35-37; Jdg.13:20; 1Cor.11:26).

So then, He is not “the” Son in terms of God’s relationship to the “many” (Mk.10:45), for the application of the former days is according to Israel’s relationship to God (in the promise) of “the” Seed (Gal.3:16). In that relationship, He became the ransom for the many as (a) son for the substitute of the ungodly nations to grope for the new covenant (Rom.5:6; Isa.9:6; 43:3-4). But He is “the” Son in terms of His exclusivity in bringing many sons to glory as the Mediator of a better covenant that speaks things greater than Abel’s blood. He is God’s elect to represent the heavenly race according to the divine and incorruptible image of the Spirit of God (1Cor.15:21-22, 44-49). In this relationship, on behalf of all who died (in Him) as the chosen of the Father, He is “the” Son of God who saves His people from their sins and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world by imputation and expiation. All these things are fulfilled in Him as the last Adam and vindicated in Him as the Lord (Yahweh) from heaven (Jn.8:55-58).

“But whatever the ultimate reasons for the selection of this word, there can be no doubt that as used in the third century it denoted the baptismal questions and answers. Later it became the regular title of the declaratory creed.”

1 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, Third Edition. (London; New York: Continuum, 2006), 60.

“The grand discovery to which our lengthy discussion has led is that the classical name for baptismal creeds was itself in origin bound up in the most intimate way with the primitive structure of the baptismal rite.”