How Is He the Son?

Start with a question Jesus is called God’s Son. There are three ways that could be true:

1. By creation. God made Him out of nothing, like He made angels and people.
2. By metaphor. “Son” is just a title for a role or relationship, with no actual begetting.
3. By begetting. He literally came forth from the Father, sharing His divine substance.

Which one does the Bible support? Let’s read the evidence.

The Bible’s own words Five times the KJV uses the phrase “only begotten” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). The Greek word is monogenes.

Here is what the word means, and how the Bible itself uses it.

1. One view: it means “only-begotten,” “only-born.”
2. The other view: it means “one of a kind,” “unique,” “only.” Many modern translations take this approach. The word is built from monos (“only”) and genos (“kind, offspring”).

Here’s how the Bible itself uses monogenes in ordinary human contexts:

• “A dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow.” (Luke 7:12)
• “He had one only daughter, about twelve years of age.” (Luke 8:42)
• “Look upon my son: for he is mine only child.” (Luke 9:38)

In every single one of these verses, the word refers to a literal, only-born child. It clearly refers to birth. Yes, it makes the child unique, but the uniqueness comes from the fact of their birth, not as a replacement for it.

When the Bible says God gave His “only begotten” Son, it means exactly what it says: He had a Son who was brought forth from Him.

The Core Analogy: Nature vs. Time The strongest argument Trinitarians use against a literal begetting is this: “If the Son had a beginning, He must be a created being, and therefore He cannot be truly God.”

This argument completely collapses when we look at how life actually works. Let’s use two analogies that prove time of origin does not dictate nature; the Source dictates nature.

1. The Human Baby When a human father begets a child, that child has a definite beginning in time. Before that moment of conception, the child did not exist. Yet, the moment the child is born, it is fully human. Why? Because it inherited the exact nature of its father. Having a beginning did not make the baby a different species; it made the baby a true son, sharing the father's nature.

2. Adam and Eve Remember Eve. She was born, brought forth directly from Adam’s bosom, from his own substance (Genesis 2:21-23). Did Eve having a beginning make her any less human than Adam? No, she was fully human because she came from Adam's own substance.

God does nothing without a reason. In the creation account, Adam presented the Father, and Eve presented Christ. We were made in their image. Just as God brought forth Eve from the substance of Adam, He brought forth His Son from His own divine substance.

Do not let human limitations or philosophical creeds dictate what God can do. We do not know the “how” of God bringing forth His Son in the days of eternity, but for God, nothing is impossible! Do not be fooled into thinking God cannot have brought forth a Son from His own substance.

Begotten vs. Created: A Matter of Substance To understand the Son, we must understand the difference between two very different biblical concepts:

• Created: Brought into existence out of nothing by the will and power of God. Lucifer was created (Ezekiel 28:15). Angels were created. They are creatures, entirely separate in nature from the Creator.
• Begotten: Brought forth from the substance and life of another. A son shares the nature of the one he comes from.

“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3). Everything that was created was made through the Son. Therefore, the Son Himself is not a created being. He was begotten. He possesses the Father's divine nature inherently because He came from the Father's own substance.

Dismantling the “Metaphor” Defense

This is the heart of the objection, and it deserves a direct answer.

1. The Bible distinguishes begetting from creating. The Son is not a creature. All things were made through Him (John 1:3).
2. The Son has the Father's nature. He has “life in himself” (John 5:26), and “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9).
3. The Bible says He was “brought forth” before anything was made. It doesn’t say when or how. We say what it says, and no more.

Trinitarians reply that “eternal generation” fits this: the Son is eternally begotten, with no moment of beginning. The Bible’s words are birth words: “begotten” and “brought forth.” We let them stand as they are written. Scripture does not say when, and we add nothing to it.

Many modern theologians argue that "Father" and "Son" are just functional titles, metaphors for roles within the Godhead, and that Christ was never literally begotten in eternity. But if sonship is just a metaphor, then the Gospel is reduced to a divine role-play. If Jesus is not the literal Son, then the Father is not the literal Father. When the Bible says God "gave" His "only begotten" Son, it is speaking of a literal, familial relationship.

The Father’s Ultimate Sacrifice We often think about what Jesus gave up on the cross. But we rarely pause to think about what it cost the Father.

Just ponder what sacrifice it was for the Father of love, to give up His only Begotten Son. We think of Jesus’ sacrifice for us, but do we think about the sacrifice of a Father and what He went through to save us? Just ponder this for a moment as a parent yourself.

If the Son is just a metaphor, or an eternally co-equal peer who never actually came from the Father, then the Father didn't really give anything. He just sent a part of Himself or a colleague. But if the Son is the literal, begotten offspring of the Father, then the cross was the ultimate, literal tearing apart of a divine family. The Father gave His own Son. That is the love of God.