Is Jesus Christ a created being (Begotten Son) or has He always existed alongside God the Father (Eternal Son)?

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1

This question strikes at the heart of Christology—the very identity of Jesus Christ. Is the “Son of God” an eternal divine person who coexisted with the Father before time began? Or does Scripture teach that the Sonship began in time, at the moment of the incarnation, when the Word was made flesh?

Many believers hold to the doctrine of the “eternal Son,” citing passages like John 1:1 and Colossians 1:17. Others argue that the Bible never speaks of an “eternal Son,” but instead presents the Son as the manifestation of the one true God in human form, beginning when the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary.

At stake is more than theological nuance—it’s how we understand God’s nature, the incarnation, and the relationship between the divine and human in Jesus. Is the term “begotten” a statement about Christ’s origin, or a revelation of His role in redemption? And does “Son” imply a separate eternal person, or is it the relational identity God took on for our salvation?

Let’s explore the Scriptures together—without creeds, without assumptions—just the inspired Word of God. What do the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Himself reveal about the nature of the Son?

2

Welcome, but please note the mission statement for the Biologos Forum.

Participate with an aim to gain deeper understanding about orthodox Christian faith and/or mainstream science, and constructively explore the relationship between them. Users whose participation in discussions seems primarily focused on promoting unorthodox religious beliefs, idiosyncratic ideas about faith and/or science, or anti-religious sentiments will be asked to take their proselytizing efforts elsewhere.

The BioLogos Forum exists as a place to help foster gracious dialogue about the harmony between science and the Christian faith. By that, we mean:

  1. We welcome any conversation about mainstream science (ie. not pseudoscience) here on the BioLogos forum.
  2. We welcome conversations about the relationship between science and Christian beliefs, ethics, or practice.
  3. We welcome conversations about the relationship between science and Bible interpretation.

However, we do not want to host threads and topics that are simply theological in nature or generally related to the Bible or church. There are a number of reasons for this, but principally, theology is a broad subject and not all of it is relevant to the mission of BioLogos.

Your original post is of questionable tie in to the relation of faith and science, and specifically questions, as you say, the historic heart of Christology. Both aspects would seem to be contrary to the purpose of the forum.

3 Likes
3

Well… (yikes) Let’s bring evolution and science into this by saying that being a scientist and firm believer in not only evolution but also abiogenesis does not stand in my way of believing Jesus is God become man, and thus always existed alongside God the Father.

Though reading that universalism thread again, has me wondering if St.Roymond will come charging in here to accuse us of Docetism for saying so, claiming that we have somehow diminished the humanity of Jesus by saying Jesus is God. Of course this is not so. Jesus is God but God being without limitations (including without a limitation to all the knowledge and power of God) can become 100% human with all the limitations of a human being subject to the laws of nature even death on the cross. And His resurrection to a spiritual body explained by Paul in 1 Cor 15 does not negate his humanity since He is leading the way for all of us to the same resurrection.

For me this refutes the so called exclusivism of John 14:6 “no one comes to the father except through me.” It seems to me Trinitarian doctrine makes this a tautology. It does not say “no one comes to the father except by accepting Christian doctrine,” let alone whatever St.Roymond changes this into.

In any case, getting this back on the BioLogos track, can you agree, The_Omega, there is no conflict with the findings of science in this, and it is perfectly reasonable accepting the findings of science on the origin of the species to also believe Jesus is not a created being but has always existed alongside God the Father?

2 Likes
4

A lot of scholars think it was very common for beings to become the spokesperson or agent of a god or the God in antiquity. They could be carriers of the divine name and speak on God’s behalf. Jesus could have been adopted as God’s son. For example, in Luke when Jesus forgives the paralytics sins his doubters say: “Who is this who is speaking blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 22 When Jesus perceived their questionings, he answered them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 23 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? 24 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—

Jesus doesn’t say I am God. I can forgive sin, he says he has the authority on earth to forgive sins. It seems that a lot of the stuff on Jesus can fit in this framework ancient framework. Someone on reddit (academic biblical) wrote this in response to a similar questions two days ago:

But then on the other side we have verses like Philippians 2:5-11. Jesus being described as the creator and sustainer of all things, etc. Several Trinitarian formulas in NT: Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Ephesians 4:4–6, 1 Peter 1:2, and Revelation 1:4–6. The great commission tells us to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

Whether the original apostles or Paul had any idea of a a full trinity is unknown and it’s probably unlikely at a detailed level. In the earliest literature we have going back just after the death of Jesus we know he was given an exalted status as a premier divine being at the very least. And it seems that Jesus also had an exalted view of himself on purely historical grounds. A full blown trinitarian belief is something that developed over time as the early church came to possess a larger canon of sacred scripture. The individual books of the Bible had to all be written and disseminated and then interpreted and reflected on. I think the doctrine off the trinity evolves naturally from looking at the larger picture of Scripture and some specific verses.

But if we atomize scripture, it is easy to see how Jesus is cast in terms of a special divine agent bearing God’s authority. For me, this is part of why the continuity between. Jesus → apostles → Church is important. Even if we treat each of the fourfold gospels individually we could be led to a view like that of Bar Ehrman thinks:

I think Jesus is God become flesh. I think early on many thought Jesus was probably an agent of God in the flesh and/or they just knew somehow Jesus had the authority and power of God. The trinity evolved as the canon becomes complete. Thus, scripture will reflect multiple viewpoints on Jesus, especially if we atomize it. If we look at the whole picture I think Jesus being God made flesh is correct.

Vinnie

2 Likes
5

Well, what do you think the answer to that is? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”…that’s a pretty good start. I don’t mean to be flippant about it…but the belief system that gave rise to Christianity was a monotheistic belief system that saw God’s nature as somehow complex, but still One. “Before Abraham was, I AM.” There are Jewish scholars who see claims of divinity in the words of Jesus. As I said, I don’t know where you are going with this. Before creeds and assumptions, there was already a knowledge of Who God said He is—at least within the context of revelation to Abraham and his descendants.

2 Likes
6

First, created being does not equate to begotten son. Jesus is the begotten Son of God but was not created. He is the firstborn, begotten in the eternal past along side the Father. The Father is invisible and is made visible by the Son who always existed.

There was never nothing but always God. The first things that were created, both visible and invisible were created through Jesus the Son. To create something is to form it from something that already exists.

  • Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Preeminence meaning is “first in rank”, not a commonly used word.

So if everything is in the Son, what about the Father?

  • Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him (the Son) all the fullness should dwell,

The trinity doctrine says the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but both are God. I don’t reject the trinity, but believe its insufficient in explaining the nature of God.

The Father is the thinker; the Spirit is the helper, moving the thoughts to form into the begotten Word. The Word is the thoughts of the Father. The Body is doing what it is Saying.

I certainly agree with this. Our hopes for heaven are not dashed by not coming to the Christian faith, not getting to know Jesus in this lifetime. Those that don’t will get the chance to hear the whole truth, and be able to choose life, standing before Him at final judgment. The Book of Life is a living document, and Jesus didn’t leave his pen on Earth. His hands and feet are still pierced for all the doubting Tomases.

  • John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7 If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”

  • 8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”

  • 9 Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me?

Don’t you just love how the disciples just dont get what He says? It goes whish over their heads. Jesus is saying that He is the Father.

To answer the title question, Jesus is both the begotten and eternal Son.

7

Screenshot_2020-05-05 Thumb down - Google Search copy
Screenshot_2020-05-05 Thumb down - Google Search copy544×576 94.3 KB

  • Matthew 3:17 (English Standard Version) - 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
  • Matthew 17:5 (English Standard Version) - 5 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son,with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”
  • Mark 1:11 (English Standard Version) - 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;with you I am well pleased.”
  • Mark 9:7 (English Standard Version) - 7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.”
  • Luke 3:22 (English Standard Version) - 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
  • Luke 9:35 (English Standard Version) - 35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!”
  • 2 Peter 1:17 (English Standard Version) - 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,”
2 Likes
8

Shh! Don’t boo so loudly.

The thing we don’t want to forget is that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. He took on the fullness of God (including having the full mind of the Father) during his entire earthly ministry… from the passages you mentioned, His baptism and the Spirit descending upon Him at the beginning of His ministry, right up until the end when He gave up the Spirit (and the Father forsakes Him) when He dies on the cross.

Jesus had the full mind of God, and it was not easy for the God of the universe to humble himself in human flesh form and take the cup passed to Him, fully knowing everything that would happen to Him.

  • Luke 22:41 And He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” 43 Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him. 44 And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

He was so distressed and in agony that He was sweating blood. There are a number of passages where Jesus speaks to the Father as a separate entity. But Jesus is speaking from His flesh, His human nature, the Son of Man. A good indicator of that is that He says “not My will, but Yours”. The will of the Son is the same as the Father. It is because of His flesh, that He needs to pray, gain strength to stay in the will of the Father, the Father in Him and Him in the Father.

9
  • Just because you’re confused doesn’t mean everybody else is.

image
image446×431 63.7 KB

3 Likes
10
  • This may be challenging for you to grasp, but the size of the “thumbs down” icon was a 50% default, and the size was the least of my concerns.
1 Like
11

Mitchell, I appreciate your willingness to affirm both the humanity and divinity of Christ while engaging with science and reason. However, I think we need to pause and take a step back from the framework of traditional Trinitarian assumptions and ask: what exactly do the Scriptures say about the Son? Not what creeds or church fathers later developed, but what was revealed by the Spirit through the prophets, apostles, and Christ Himself.

I believe with all my heart that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), but I do not affirm that the Son is an eternal divine person who always existed alongside the Father. That language already implies a second divine consciousness and borders on dividing the Godhead internally—something the Bible never does. The Word (Logos) was in the beginning with God and was God (John 1:1), but the Sonship began in time when the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). Scripture consistently shows that the “Son of God” is the man Christ Jesus born of a woman (Galatians 4:4), conceived by the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35). That’s not the start of divinity—but the start of the Sonship—God’s self-revealing expression in redemptive relationship to humanity.

I also respectfully disagree with the idea that affirming the Sonship as beginning in time leads to Docetism. If anything, it safeguards the true humanity of Christ. He didn’t appear to be a man—He became a man. There was a real beginning to the man Christ Jesus (Hebrews 1:5). His divinity is not lessened by the reality that the Son did not exist as a distinct person in eternity past, but rather, His divinity is revealed in that God Himself took on flesh and blood to redeem us (Acts 20:28).

As for science, I personally don’t see conflict in scientific discovery when properly understood. But my highest authority isn’t evolutionary theory or philosophical speculation—it’s the God-breathed Scriptures, rightly divided and Spirit-revealed. So no, I don’t believe the Son existed alongside the Father as a second co-eternal person, because Scripture does not speak of Him that way. Instead, I see a beautiful and singular revelation: one God, who manifested Himself in time as the Son, not to establish a hierarchy in the Godhead, but to reconcile the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Let’s keep going back to the Word—not just to affirm ideas we inherited, but to be transformed by the truth God actually revealed.

12

Thank you for this thorough response—there’s a lot to appreciate here in terms of academic perspective and historical framing. But speaking from a deeply personal and scriptural standpoint, I believe there’s a critical distinction we must hold fast to: Jesus is not just an agent or conduit of God’s power—He is the invisible God made visible. Not a created being, not merely an exalted emissary, and certainly not an ancient Near Eastern proxy bearing a borrowed name—but God Himself manifest in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).

I agree that the ancient concept of divine name-bearing is insightful, especially in passages like Exodus 23:21. But that’s the very point: those angelic figures prefigured something far greater. The name wasn’t just in Jesus—the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Him (Colossians 2:9). That’s not delegated authority—that’s incarnation.

And while scholars may suggest that the Gospels present evolving Christologies (adoptionism in Mark, virginal conception in Luke, pre-existence in John), I see a progressive revelation, not contradiction. Each writer, inspired by the Holy Ghost, builds on the truth already present. Luke doesn’t deny preexistence; he focuses on the miraculous incarnation. John pulls back the curtain fully: In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was made flesh.

As for Philippians 2:5–11, it doesn’t describe an exalted creature but the God who emptied Himself—not by ceasing to be God, but by taking on the form of a servant. The Sonship began in time, yes, at the incarnation, but the Word—the self-expression of the eternal Spirit—always existed. He didn’t become the second person of a Trinity; He became flesh.

To me, the idea that the Trinity “evolved” as the canon developed misses something essential: the canon didn’t create revelation—it captured it. Scripture doesn’t reflect confusion about Jesus; it reflects the divine mystery now revealed (Colossians 1:26–27). The apostles didn’t need a post-biblical creed to affirm Christ’s identity—they preached that God was in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19), reconciling the world to Himself.

So I see Jesus not as a divine agent, nor as an exalted man given divine authority, but as the eternal God stepping into human flesh to redeem us—not merely speaking God’s name, but being the name above every name.

1 Like
13

Thank you, bluebird1—I appreciate the tone and your reference to John 1 and John 8:58, which are essential in this conversation. I believe the key is not whether Christ is divine—He absolutely is—but when and how the Sonship began. When John says, “In the beginning was the Word,” I fully agree. The Word (Logos) was with God and was God. But I see something vital here: John doesn’t say the Son was with God in the beginning—He says the Word was.

For me, the Son is not a separate eternal person who always existed alongside the Father, but rather the manifestation of that eternal Word in time. The Sonship began when the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), when the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35). That’s when the relational identity of the “Son” came into being—not as a created being, but as God’s own self-revelation in human form. Before that, the Word existed, fully divine, fully God, but not yet “the Son” in the sense Scripture most often uses the term.

So, while I absolutely affirm the deity of Christ, I don’t believe Scripture teaches an “eternal Son” coexisting as a distinct person alongside the Father. Instead, I believe the eternal God became Son for our redemption. To me, that doesn’t diminish His glory—it magnifies the humility of His incarnation and the singularity of God’s identity. God didn’t send someone else; He came Himself.

14

If the Son is not eternal, then there was no Incarnation.

I can’t decide whether to be amused, baffled, or both.

It’s one that flowed naturally out of second-Temple Judaism and the doctrine of “two powers in heaven”, with a YHWH-Elohim Who never left heaven along with a YHWH-Elohim Who walked on the earth in the form of a man.

Personally I say Ehrman is misreading Mark. It’s a point claimed by those who like to hold that the different Gospels have different theologies, but it cannot be sustained from the text.

The Trinity appears before the canon is complete.

Yeah – He’s saying He is Yahweh, but not that He is the Father.

1 Like
15

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I can tell you’re deeply engaging with the Scriptures, and I appreciate your respect for the mystery and majesty of Christ. That said, I do believe we need to be extremely careful not to insert speculative frameworks or blend philosophical reasoning with revelation in a way that shifts us from what the Bible plainly declares.

When I say Jesus is not a created being, I wholeheartedly agree with you—He is not created. But I also don’t believe the Scriptures teach that the “Son” existed eternally as a distinct person “alongside” the Father. The Bible never says “eternal Son”—that phrase is theological, not biblical. What does exist eternally is the Word, the Logos, which was with God and was God (John 1:1). That Word is not a second person, but the very self-expression, the uttered will, wisdom, and nature of the one God. And that Word became flesh—that’s when the Sonship began (John 1:14; Luke 1:35). Sonship is not eternal—it is incarnational.

Colossians 1 is often cited, but notice Paul calls Christ the image of the invisible God—not a second divine being standing next to Him. To be the image is to manifest, not to be a separate preexistent person. If the Invisible Eternal Spirit of God was able to look in a mirror the reflection He would see is Jesus. The “firstborn over all creation” speaks of rank and purpose, not origin in eternity. Firstborn from the dead. Firstborn of many brethren. It’s covenantal and redemptive language. In Him all things consist because He is the visible vessel of the fullness (Col. 1:19; 2:9)—the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

So for me, the beauty of Christ is this: the eternal, invisible God didn’t send someone else. He manifested Himself. The Son is not a coequal or coeternal person—He is the manifestation of the Father in flesh (John 14:9–10). The Word didn’t “form into” a Son before time began. The Word became the Son when He took on human flesh. That’s not just a theological detail—it preserves the truth that God Himself came to redeem us, not another divine person acting on His behalf.

16

So the eternal Word underwent a status change. But He was still the Word, and thus an eternal being.

For this to be the case, the Word would have to not be a Person, which in turn requires that God not be a person – or that, at the least, God has an aspect or portion to which personhood cannot be ascribed, and thus God is no longer unitary.

And thus an eternal Person.

17

I’ve seen this diagram many times—it’s known as the Shield of the Trinity (or Scutum Fidei). From a historical perspective, it was developed to express the classical doctrine of the Trinity: that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

But as someone who holds to the Oneness of God, I see deep problems here—not just logically, but biblically. To me, this diagram reflects a philosophical framework imposed onto Scripture rather than drawn from it. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that “God is three persons.” Instead, what I find is crystal clear: God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and that one God manifested Himself as the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 3:16).

This diagram attempts to explain the “mystery” of the Trinity, but it ends up defining God through exclusionary relationships: each “person” is God, but not the others. That’s not revelation—that’s a theological triangle. In contrast, when I read the Word, I don’t see a divine committee—I see one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4–6), one throne in Heaven (Revelation 4:2), and one name above every name: Jesus (Philippians 2:9–11).

Jesus didn’t say, “I and the other two are one.” He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). And in Him—not alongside Him, not next to Him, but in Him—dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9).

So when I see this diagram, I don’t just disagree with it—I grieve, because it tries to compartmentalize the infinite, invisible Spirit of God into three roles treated as distinct co-eternal persons, a concept foreign to the inspired text. For me, Jesus isn’t the second of three. He’s the full and visible expression of the one true God.

18

I understand where you’re coming from, and I used to think the same way. But the more I studied the Scriptures for myself—without the filter of post-biblical creeds—the more I realized that this line of reasoning assumes something the Bible never actually says. The Son is not eternal as a separate divine person; rather, what is eternal is the Spirit of God—the Father—who later manifested Himself in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16, John 1:14). The Incarnation doesn’t require the Son to have existed eternally; it requires that God took on human nature in time, and that’s exactly what happened in Jesus Christ.

The Incarnation was not the eternal Son becoming human—it was the eternal God manifesting Himself in flesh, creating the role and relationship of the Son in that moment (Luke 1:35). If the Son had existed eternally as a second divine person, then the Son wasn’t really begotten, and Mary wasn’t really overshadowed by the Holy Ghost to bring forth the Son—He would’ve already existed apart from her womb. That’s not what Scripture teaches. So for me, affirming that the Sonship began at Bethlehem doesn’t deny the Incarnation—it establishes it on biblical grounds. God didn’t send a second person; He sent Himself in the form of a Son (Galatians 4:4).

19

That answers the question: Jesus Christ is not a created being.

If the Word is not a second Person, then my prior argument pertains again: this would mean that there is a part or aspect of God which is not a Person, and thus God is not a unity.

The philosophical meaning of the term requires that the πρωτότοκος (pro-TOH-toh-kos) has existence prior to the emergence/birth, the “opening of the way” that shapes all that comes after. Since the following verses are essentially just an exposition of the philosophical meaning of πρωτότοκος (pro-TOH-toh-kos), then that meaning pertains, and thus the πρωτότοκος (pro-TOH-toh-kos) existed before.

But go back to John 1: the language there is of two distinct entities in a face-to-face relationship – an implication of πρὸς τὸν Θεόν (prohss-tohn-theh-OWN), literally “(facing) towards God”. The image is of two entities “towards” each other.

It’s purely terminological, except that you are using it to do away with the Word as being a Person.

20

Sounds to me like The_Omega has rejected the defining belief of Christianity like Arius and the JWs.

I remind everyone that I didn’t start with any of these beliefs in God, Bible, or Christian teachings. And the idea that we must believe something just because some old book says so was always rather ludicrous to me. When I read it, the most I could say is that it was as good as other fantasy and science fiction stories I had read. My reasons for belief and why Christianity tell some of the story and reasons why this changed. Regardless, I decided on every single point of doctrine for myself. IOW I have my own reasons in scripture and in life for each of these decisions.

The scripture which convinced me of the Christian view of God (i.e. Trinitarian) is Philippians 2:5-8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

I see this as a tangible example of God choosing love and freedom over power and control. The obsession with power by so many I have met in and on the fringes of Christianity has not given me much reason to believe or give myself to what they worship. Indeed, it seemed to only reinforce the accusation by non-believers that their religion was just a tool of power for manipulating and controlling people. But in this description given by Philippians 2 we can see a different God who values something else.

1 Like