Basic HTML Version
84
others that a generation dependent on the optional will of the Father would make the
existence of the Son contingent and thus rob Him of His deity. Then the Son would not be equal
to and homoousios with the Father, for the Father exists necessarily, and cannot be conceived
of as non-existent. The generation of the Son must be regarded as a necessary and perfectly
natural act of God. This does not mean that it is not related to the Father’s will in any sense of
the word. It is an act of the Father’s necessary will, which merely means that His concomitant
will takes perfect delight in it. (2) It is an eternal act of the Father. This naturally follows from
the preceding. If the generation of the Son is a necessary act of the Father, so that it is
impossible to conceive of Him as not generating, it naturally shares in the eternity of the Father.
This does not mean, however, that it is an act that was completed in the far distant past, but
rather that it is a timeless act, the act of an eternal present, an act always continuing and yet
ever completed. Its eternity follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine
immutability and from the true deity of the Son. In addition to this it can be inferred from all
those passages of Scripture which teach either the pre-existence of the Son or His equality with
the Father, Mic. 5:2; John 1:14,18; 3:16; 5:17,18,30,36; Acts 13:33; John 17:5; Col. 1:16; Heb.
1:3. The statement of Ps. 2:7, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,” is generally
quoted to prove the generation of the Son, but, according to some, with rather doubtful
propriety, cf. Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5. They surmise that these words refer to the raising up of
Jesus as Messianic King, and to the recognition of Him as Son of God in an official sense, and
should probably be linked up with the promise found in II Sam. 7:14, just as they are in Heb.
1:5. (3) It is a generation of the personal subsistence rather than of the divine essence of the
Son. Some have spoken as if the Father generated the essence of the Son, but this is equivalent
to saying that He generated His own essence, for the essence of both the Father and the Son is
exactly the same. It is better to say that the Father generates the personal subsistence of the
Son, but thereby also communicates to Him the divine essence in its entirety. But in doing this
we should guard against the idea that the Father first generated a second person, and then
communicated the divine essence to this person, for that would lead to the conclusion that the
Son was not generated out of the divine essence, but created out of nothing. In the work of
generation there was a communication of essence; it was one indivisible act. And in virtue of
this communication the Son also has life in Himself. This is in agreement with the statement of
Jesus, “For as the Father hath life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in
Himself,” John 5:26. (4) It is a generation that must be conceived of as spiritual and divine. In
opposition to the Arians, who insisted that the generation of the Son necessarily implied
separation or division in the divine Being, the Church Fathers stressed the fact that this
generation must not be conceived in a physical and creaturely way, but should be regarded as
spiritual and divine, excluding all idea of division or change. It brings distinctio and distributio,
but no diversitas and divisio in the divine Being. (Bavinck) The most striking analogy of it is