The more I look into the matter, the more I am convinced that the term “only begotten” cannot be limited to His birth into the world. I believe John 1:14,1814And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) carries it back into eternity. In verse 14 it is His personal glory as an “only-begotten” with a father (see JND translation), not something that became true only by His birth into the world. And in verse 18, it is, “Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father” (JND) — something that never had a beginning. It is an eternally subsisting relationship — not His relationship with God as Messiah born into the world, according to Psalm 2, and therefore a time relationship.
Now as to the time relationship, He was “begotten”; Psalm 2 says this — ”this day have I begotten Thee.” But in the eternal relationship there is no scripture which speaks of the act of begetting. It only states what He was as Son with the Father, “an only begotten” — ”only begotten in the bosom of the Father” — not one who was “begotten.” This distinction is important.
The same difficulty might be raised as to “firstborn of every creature.” The term “firstborn” expresses His position in relation to the creature, without any question as to the time of His birth. “Only begotten” expresses His relationship to the Father as Son, a place that no other has. We are “sons” by birth and by adoption, but He alone is an “only begotten,” and Scripture does not say it is either by “birth” or “adoption.” It is, I believe, what He is simply, from eternity to eternity.
“First Begotten”
It is important to see that in Hebrews 1, a passage quoted from Psalm 2, He is not called the “only begotten.” It is, “This day have I begotten Thee,” and, “The first begotten.” It is time relationship to God and to the creature that is expressed in these two terms, though what He is in His own Person is brought out in the first three verses, “Son,” “brightness of God’s glory, and exact expression of His substance.” His place with and in the bosom of the Father is not the point here, and so “only begotten” is not used.
“Only begotten” must not be confounded either with “have ... begotten” or “first begotten.” “Have ... begotten” is connected with time and an actual begetting. “First begotten” is His title in relation to the creature, and when as such He is brought into the world, all the angels are called to worship Him. This shows His preeminence in that connection. Both these terms are in Hebrews 1. John alone uses the term “only begotten” (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 114And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18)
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18) John 4:99Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. (John 4:9)) as applied to the Person of the Son. This of itself is significant, as John in a special way goes back before time and shows what was the glory of the Person of the Son in absolute deity. Others dwell on His official glories and relative titles, but John develops His personal and eternal glories. Even “Son of Man which is in heaven” is His divine glory — glory that flows not from His being “Son of Man,” but from what He is as God — it is His Person but as divine, and so in heaven, though bodily on earth.
“Only Begotten”
In the use of the term “only begotten,” John brings out two things — first, the glory of the Son, and second, God’s love in giving His Son. He was not only a “Son” with the Father, but an “only begotten Son”; not only “the Son” “in the bosom of the Father,” but “the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father.” There is no thought of “begetting” in it at all, any more than when we say “the Son.” It is the unique character of the relationship, as filling up the delight of the Father’s heart. Then in John 3:1616For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16) and 1 John 4:99Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. (John 4:9) there is the unfolding the greatness of God’s love. He so loved the world that He gave — not only His Son, but — His “only begotten Son.” Connect “only begotten” here with time, and the force of it is lost altogether.
Holy Fear
It seems clear to me and most precious too, but I do not know that I can make others see it in the same way. I have no shadow of doubt on my mind as to it. It is an interesting subject, but one that must be looked at with care and holy fear. Mere reason will go for nothing in handling it. We have the Spirit to give us the force of the Scriptures, and that we have through grace.
A person might not be clear as to these expressions, but to deny that “only begotten which is in the bosom of the Father” is an eternally subsisting relationship would be serious error, robbing the Son of His glory and the Father of His eternal delight, as well as weakening the truth of the gospel in the expression of God the Father’s love in giving “His own,” “His only begotten Son.”
A. H. Rule, selected