Please explain "Begotten not made"

[Daniel_Marsh]

Read Psalms 2, then read the chapters where it is quoted in the New Testament and see what you think.

[Psalm 2] royal psalm. To rebellious kings (Psalm 2:1-3) God responds vigorously (Psalm 2:4-6). A speaker proclaims the divine decree (in the legal adoption language of the day), making the Israelite king the earthly representative of God (Psalm 2:7-9) and warning kings to obey (Psalm 2:10-11). The psalm has a messianic meaning for the Church; the New Testament understands it of Christ (Acts 4:25-27; 13:33; Hebrews 1:5).

usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm2.htm

The safeguard in interpreting such passages is rather straightforward: study the Old Testament passage in its historical context first, and then see how the New Testament used it. If you employ the New Testament too soon, you shall run the risk of reading into the Old the idea of the New. Do not misunderstand; you must use the New Testament in exegesis when it uses the Old Testament (directly or indirectly), but you must use it correctly. For example, many people have used Psalm 2:7 as a proof-text of the “eternal generation” of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (meaning, that He was eternally the Son). A careful exegesis of the psalm will show it to be a coronation psalm for a (every and any) Davidic king. Once this is clearly understood, then the New Testament usage can be traced. Hebrews 1 correctly takes the typology to the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of the Majesty on High where he awaits His inheritance at the second coming (when He again brings him into the world). Other passages in the Bible clearly teach the eternal “sonship”of Jesus the Messiah, but Psalm 2 is distinctly a coronation psalm.

bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2756

Matthew 3:17 (New International Version)
And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Acts 13:33
he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
" 'You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.

Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father? Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”

Hebrews 5:5
So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Quoted by JimG:

“Begotten, not made” has reference to the Second Person of the Trinity, the Divine Word, who became incarnate as Jesus.

“Made” has the connotation of “created.” “Begotten” has the meaning of eternally generated from the Father.

The Father does not create the Son. Rather, the Father, in knowing Himself by the operation of his divine intellect, from all eternity ‘speaks’ the divine Word. There was never any instant that God the Father did not exist, and in existing, know himself, and in knowing himself, generate the Person of the Son.

The Son’s nature is not different or separate from that of the Father. Only in his Person is he distinct.

In the incarnation, it was that Person of the Son, who also assumed a human nature.

The term “begotten, not made” is intended to make clear that the Second Person of the Trinity is not a created being. In fact, he is one being with the Father.

Good response.

The word begotten, however, has an interesting history and has not meant the same thing for different people.

It should be noted that Arius, like Nicene Christians, also claimed the Son to be the only-begotten one of God. However, Arius, along with his supporters, understood the word “begotten” differently than did others of his time. For Arius, begotten implied createdness. For his later opponents, begotten did not imply createdness. For Arius, only God the Father is unbegotten and uncreated. Only He is eternal. If the Son were not created, then He must be unbegotten, and in being unbegotten, be eternal. Arius was concerned that by making the Son co-everlasting with the Father there would be two first principals (when only the Father should be the first principal), and that such a definition would tend towards modalism and even polytheism. He also feared that by establishing an essential connection between the Father and the Son one might fall into the error of thinking that the Son were some part of the Father, or some emanation of the Father, rather than a distinct person of the Trinity.

The supporters of Nicaea clarified the meaning of the word “begotten” so that it discluded the denotation of “createdness” while distinguishing the unbegotten Father from the eternally begotten Son.

What is interesting about Arius is that he held some unique points for which he is usually denied as holding. For one, he indeed claimed the Son to be God. Secondly, he did not say that the Son was created in time but before the ages, and by implication, timelessly before the creation of time. Thirdly, he held that Arius was not just any creature but a perfect creature, above normal worldly creations.

Of course, Alexander of Alexander, Arius’ opponent, makes numerous valid arguments against several of Arius’ beliefs.

 

[JimG]

Goblin_Taters:

The word begotten, however, has an interesting history and has not meant the same thing for different people.

Thanks for an interesting post. Theology, to paraphrase “Love Story,” means always having to make distinctions. Orthodoxy is a balancing act on the edge of the razor without falling off to either side. People still have difficulty speaking of the trinity without either dividing God into parts, or multiplying his being, neither of which is acceptable. The term “begotten,” when you think about it, is kind of a strange word to apply theologically, but maybe it was all that was available at the time.

 

[richbansha]

Why complicate it more than it has to be? Begotten means he slid out of Mary’s birth canal. Made means assembled, sculpted or spoken into existence. What is so tough about that?

 

[JimG]

richbansha:

Why complicate it more than it has to be? Begotten means he slid out of Mary’s birth canal. Made means assembled, sculpted or spoken into existence. What is so tough about that?

Not quite. “Begotten” has reference to the eternal Word without respect to the incarnation. Thus, it has nothing to do with the birth canal.

 

[richbansha]

JimG:

Not quite. “Begotten” has reference to the eternal Word without respect to the incarnation. Thus, it has nothing to do with the birth canal.

I was begotten too, does that reference the eternal Word? It amazes me how people will tie a can to any tail they can find.

I am not saying that Jesus status is not special. I just want to remind people that there is a certain virtue in simplicity. How are we supposed to evangelize the rest of the world with all of the hidden meanings and mystical mumbojumbo that we pull out of thin air? One of our biggest obstacles to persuading others to join us is the general impression that Catholocism is outrageously complex and our beliefs have been “invented” by mortal men. We need to combat that falsehood not reinforce it.

 

[JimG]

richbansha:

I was begotten too, does that reference the eternal Word? It amazes me how people will tie a can to any tail they can find.

When applied to human beings, “begotten” means “fathered,” or “sired.” A human father begets children through the act of sexual intercourse. Christians don’t believe that Jesus had a human father in that sense; so the term is used in an analogical sense to apply to God the Father begetting the Son.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

richbansha:

I am not saying that Jesus status is not special. I just want to remind people that there is a certain virtue in simplicity. How are we supposed to evangelize the rest of the world with all of the hidden meanings and mystical mumbojumbo that we pull out of thin air? One of our biggest obstacles to persuading others to join us is the general impression that Catholocism is outrageously complex and our beliefs have been “invented” by mortal men. We need to combat that falsehood not reinforce it.

Actually, this is a false dilemma. Simple preaching is both fine and appropriate in many circumstances. But the Church must also teach difficult Truth as precisely as possible without regard for PR considerations.

 

[richbansha]

I am going for two in one this time. Please forgive me if this seems disrespectful or looks terrible in the flow of the message board.

JimG:

When applied to human beings, “begotten” means “fathered,” or “sired.” A human father begets children through the act of sexual intercourse. Christians don’t believe that Jesus had a human father in that sense; so the term is used in an analogical sense to apply to God the Father begetting the Son.

Very true but also not relevent. We need to remember that a word like “begotten” only has the meaning that is applied by the listener – never the speaker. One of the biggest reasons people fail to communicate. Anyway, the most common understanding of the word is the one that I assigned to it. Since the word, as I apply it adequately decribes the concrete event as it happened, that application should be prefered to the more abstract. Even S.I. Hiakawa will agree on that. This being the case, Occam’s razor demands that we omit anything more.
Scott Waddell:

Actually, this is a false dilemma. Simple preaching is both fine and appropriate in many circumstances. But the Church must also teach difficult Truth as precisely as possible without regard for PR considerations.

I am afraid I don’t quite agree. We don’t need to evangelize the semiaries, but the streets and alleys of the world. I am absolutely convinced that when our late Holy Father said at World Youth Day," JP2 Loves You Too", it (name removed by moderator)ired more people to evangelize and led to more conversions than any encyclical he ever wrote.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

richbansha:

I am afraid I don’t quite agree. We don’t need to evangelize the semiaries, but the streets and alleys of the world. I am absolutely convinced that when our late Holy Father said at World Youth Day," JP2 Loves You Too", it (name removed by moderator)ired more people to evangelize and led to more conversions than any encyclical he ever wrote.

I’m afraid you can’t really disagree because I did not discount the simple approach. Read again carefully:

Actually, this is a false dilemma. Simple preaching is both fine and appropriate in many circumstances. But the Church must also teach difficult Truth as precisely as possible without regard for PR considerations.

I DO agree that as one very erudite theologian put it: “It is easier to write 100 books of philosophy than to live one Beatitude.” Does he mean that no Christian should ever write a book of philosophy? Not at all.

I DO agree that we need always to evangelize everywhere. In fact, I think BXVI’s new encyclical touches this very point. It does not follow that all high and finer points of theology need to be chucked out the window. It’s like cutting down an oak tree looking for the acorn it grew from.

 

[richbansha]

Scott Waddell:

I’m afraid you can’t really disagree because I did not discount the simple approach. Read again carefully:.

Yes you did say so. I did take note and that is why I used the word “quite” rather than a flat “I do not agree”. I am happy to think that we actually are in full agreement on this. The differences only appear to be semantic ones.
Scott Waddell:

I DO agree that as one very erudite theologian put it: “It is easier to write 100 books of philosophy than to live one Beatitude.” Does he mean that no Christian should ever write a book of philosophy? Not at all.

I DO agree that we need always to evangelize everywhere. In fact, I think BXVI’s new encyclical touches this very point. It does not follow that all high and finer points of theology need to be chucked out the window. It’s like cutting down an oak tree looking for the acorn it grew from.

Yes. I can agree here too. Perhaps, we are accustomed to working with different audiences and that is the source of any misundestanding. I get the idea from most of the posts in here that I am the one who is out of sync with everyone else and not you.

Anyone who has read many of my posts knows that I always prefer the most painfully concrete to the most elegantly abstract. I almost never rely on dogma and doctrine to support my positions. You might even go so far as to say that except for the Protestant and Athiest trolls, I am the lunatic fringe. There is a reason for this.

I am under seige by Evangelical and Mormons who want to convert ME. These people deserve more than a simple no for an answer. To them Catholic dogma, tradition and theology are little understood and even less considered. The only way to reach these folks is to strip everything to the bare bones and come back using their style of thinking and expression. Since I am still a Christian and have persuded more than one to abondon anti-Catholic rhetoric, I like to think I am successful. It is now more than a matter of habit but also of effort.

If anybody still thinks I’m nuts, move to my street.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Ok, I’ll take your point on this. From my perspective on this forum I often see attacks on “apologetics”. That is, when someone is not making a reasonable case and having that pointed out, some start impugning reason itself.

 

[JimG]

Since the phrase “begotten not made” appears in the Nicene Creed, and the OP’s question had to do with how Jesus could be begotten but not made, I figure that the intent of the question was to explain the phrase as a Christian creedal belief. So it would seem proper to ask what the authors of the Nicene Creed meant to convey by it.

 

[richbansha]

Scott Waddell:

Ok, I’ll take your point on this. From my perspective on this forum I often see attacks on “apologetics”. That is, when someone is not making a reasonable case and having that pointed out, some start impugning reason itself.

Thank you Scott for understanding my PR problem around here. I just wish that I could explain myself better to my brothers and sisters.

Many probably think I am here to make trouble or that I am a closet athiest. Undoubtely, most dismiss my stuff as the work of a crank. It is unconventional but it is honest. A lot of it is written to see if somebody out there can completely refute it, so that I can change my mind and stay with the program. Fact is I need this message board much more than it needs me.

 

[Philthy]

kellyb32:

This is the question posed to my husband from a fallen away Christian at work. He was not a Catholic to begin with, he was a Baptist (?) if I’m not mistaken. He wants to know how Jesus could be born but not be made.

I did find some info on the Catholic Answers Library regarding the eternal sonship of Christ…is there any other info that might easily explain an answer to this question?

How can Jesus be begotten and not made? The simple answer: He is eternal - the eternally begotten son of the Father. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. This statement is one of confirming his full divinity. The Arians and Gnostics, very early on in Church history, attempted to refute that Jesus was God and that he actually existed in the flesh. That is why the Nicene Creed contains the raw power of affirming the absolute full divinity of Jesus Christ:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ.
The only Son of God. Eternally begotten of the Father.
God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God.
Begotten, not made - one in being with the Father.
Through him all THINGS were made.

It doesn’t get much more potent than that. Jesus Christ is God, and he is eternal - outside of time and space - he is not a created “thing”.

 

[richbansha]

Philthy:

How can Jesus be begotten and not made? The simple answer: He is eternal - the eternally begotten son of the Father. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. This statement is one of confirming his full divinity. The Arians and Gnostics, very early on in Church history, attempted to refute that Jesus was God and that he actually existed in the flesh. That is why the Nicene Creed contains the raw power of affirming the absolute full divinity of Jesus Christ:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ.
The only Son of God. Eternally begotten of the Father.
God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God.
Begotten, not made - one in being with the Father.
Through him all THINGS were made.

It doesn’t get much more potent than that. Jesus Christ is God, and he is eternal - outside of time and space - he is not a created “thing”.

Oh! I really like this. Nothing more effective than the simple restatement of a universally recognized fact. I wish I had thought of it. Good Show.

 

[foxyrox]

If anyone can help me to follow the treads of each conversation I would appreciate whatever help they could offer.

One of the subjects brought up in these many responses was the Immaculate conception. According to what I was taught by my parachial school teachers: Mary is who conceived Immaculately and she conceived Jesus. She is the IMMACULATE (pure, clean, virgin) conceiving Jesus by the Holy Spirit. This is how Jesus was " begotten, not made".
It is a difficult concept to be sure. But it seems to have been necessary to make Jesus the Son of God. And that is the message that the authors of the New Testament were trying to convey…is it not ??

 

[JimG]

foxyrox:

If anyone can help me to follow the treads of each conversation I would appreciate whatever help they could offer.

One of the subjects brought up in these many responses was the Immaculate conception. According to what I was taught by my parachial school teachers: Mary is who conceived Immaculately and she conceived Jesus. She is the IMMACULATE (pure, clean, virgin) conceiving Jesus by the Holy Spirit. This is how Jesus was " begotten, not made".
It is a difficult concept to be sure. But it seems to have been necessary to make Jesus the Son of God. And that is the message that the authors of the New Testament were trying to convey…is it not ??

I’m not sure if I understand what you’re saying here.

Mary’s immaculate conception means this: she was full of grace from the moment of her conception, having no original sin on her soul, and no actual sin thereafter. In a sense, she received the grace of baptism at the first instant of her existence.

The doctrine of the immaculate conception says nothing about the method of her conception, which is presumed to have been in the normal way.

“Begotten, not made” is intended to convey Jesus being begotten of the Father as the second person of the Trinity–he was not created.

 

[foxyrox]

I have had the wrong idea then for many years…wow. How can we know that Mary was as you say from the moment of her conception. Where does it say this in the Bible ? I will need to read this.

 

[JimG]

Here’s an article about the immaculate conception:

catholic.com/library/immaculate_conception_and_assum.asp