Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Do we have any proof from the Bible that the second Person of the Trinity was the Only-begotten Son of the Father before His incarnation?

share|improve this question
I don't think this question is sufficiently clear. I assumed you were asking whether the second person's "begotten" status is eternal (the subordination debate), but it could also be read as asking whether simply whether Jesus existed before the incarnation. Can you please clarify? –  curiousdannii 20 hours ago

4 Answers 4

up vote 3 down vote accepted

The classic Bible verse to clearly declare that Jesus was the only-begotten son of God before the incarnation is John 1:1-2, declaring Jesus to be fully God, eternally with his Father.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2).

From this eternity:

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2).

Notice the words ‘One and Only’.

So Jesus is the Eternal Word, of the Father and is God of very God. Now the eternal word of God is the express image ‘coming out’ of the Father which is his One and only Eternal Son.

God the Father Himself declared this Jesus to be his eternal Son, during the Baptism of John:

9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9-11)

Now the only-begotten Son is not a fictitious rapture of his human nature in the incarnation, or resurrection but from eternity. Jesus said:

And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13)

I will end it here as this subject has been fully proven by so many theologians through history that I would never be able to add anything to it. John Owen (Quoting St. Jerome) indicates to me that we need not fuss over the term only-begotten. The Messiah, the Son of God has so many names referring to the same 'One and Only' as always believed in the Chruch:

And Jerome, speaking of the effects of this mystery: (Comment. in Ezekiel, cap. 46:) “Ne miretur lector si idem et Princeps est et Sacerdos, et Vitulus, et Aries, et Agnus; cum in Scripturis sanctis pro varietate causarum legamus eum Dominum, et Deum, et Hominem, et Prophetam, et Virgam, et Radicem, et Florem, et Principem, et Regem justum, et Justitiam, Apostolu, et Episcopu, Brachium, Servum, Angelum, Pastorem, Filium, et Unigenitum, et Promogenitum, Ostium, Viam, Sagittam, Sapientiam, et multa alia.” — “Let not the reader wonder if he find one and the same to be the Prince and Priest, the Bullock, Ram, and Lamb; for in the Scripture, on variety of causes, we find him called Lord, God, and Man, the Prophet, a Rod, and the Root, the Flower, Prince, Judge, and Righteous King; Righteousness, the Apostle and Bishop, the Arm and Servant of God, the Angel, the Shepherd, the Son, the Only-begotten, the First-begotten, the Door, the Way, the Arrow, Wisdom, and sundry other things.” (John Owen’s Works Vol 1, P39)

Yes, He was the only begotten Son of God before the incarnation. This has always been one of the core beliefs within both Catholic and Protestant churches, across all the ages.

share|improve this answer
Thank you for your answer. Let me make it very clear. This is also my belief, but I want to "play an unbeliever" here for a while. Of all your verses that you have cited in your answer, only the first one - John 1:1 - is related to the time before His incarnation, and it is exactly that verse that says nothing not only about His only-begottenness, but even about His sonship. –  brilliant Jun 13 '12 at 6:04
@brilliant I see what your saying, for many things in the bible there is not one sentence that you can hang your hat on. The sentences are meant to be strung together to form ideas and themes. I think it is true to say that every word in the Bible as a an enterprise of ideas, all together, prove Jesus was the only begotten. All Messianic themes, prophecies, types and shadows are concerning the same Eternal Person. All was fullilled in Christ and so every name of Christ, as listed above, is proven by the whole Bible and each name proves the other. –  Mike Jun 13 '12 at 7:16
"Before Abraham was, I am." –  zpletan Jun 13 '12 at 13:48

Yes. There is a proof from the Bible that the second person of the Trinity was the only begotten Son of the Father before his incarnation.

The early Christians loved to quote the following Old Testament Bible verses to prove that the second person of the Trinity was the only begotten Son of the Father before his incarnation.

Psalm 110:3 (Douay-Rheims Bible)

With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee.

Psalm 45:1 (Douay-Rheims Bible)

Unto the end, for them that shall be changed, for the sons of Core, for understanding. A canticle for the Beloved. My heart hath uttered a good word I speak my works to the king; My tongue is the pen of a scrivener that writeth swiftly.

Psalm 2:7 (Douay-Rheims Bible)

The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.

Proverbs 8:25 (NetBible)

before the mountains were set in place--before the hills--I was born,

The early Christians loved to quote the following New Testament Bible verses to prove that the second person of the Trinity was the only begotten Son of the Father before his incarnation.

John 1:1-4 (NASB)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

John 1:18 (NASB)

18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

John 3:16 (NASB)

16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

1 Corinthians 1:24 (NASB)

24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.


The early church used the Greek Version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint.

The Latin Vulgate's Old Testament is from the Septuagint. The Dhouay-Rheims Bible is from the Latin Vulgate.Hence, the reading of the Septuagint is preserved in both translations.

share|improve this answer
This answer would be a lot better if you could add references showing that this is a common understanding, and who teaches/believes it. On this site, we're not looking for personal interpretation, but rather focusing on what various Christian groups teach. See How we are different than other sites? and What makes a good supported answer? –  David Nov 2 '13 at 13:47

In the New Testament, Jesus proclaims that he is YHWH of the old testament:

John 8:58 - "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!"

Exodus 3:14 - "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM (YHWH). This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Before his crucifixion, Jesus made a fervent prayer in which he identifies himself as having much glory before even world history began:

John 17:5 - "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

So yes there is biblical evidence to justify the fact that Jesus (YAH'shua) of the New Testament is indeed the same God; YHWH of the Old Testament - but in the flesh...

share|improve this answer

The Bible does not teach trinity at all. This is a common misunderstanding. If you believe in trinity, you have to assume that you will be facing three gods in heaven, while God says He is one in many passages.

Jesus means God saves... He is Emmanuel, God with us. He is not the Son of God with us, Jesus is God with us. It is not an hypothetical son living in heaven that came to visit us, but God Himself.

Jesus was a man, a man with all the limitations of a man. God decided to humble Himself and come as a small baby, hopeless, to save us and to fulfil is plan. Jesus is the perfect example of what we should be: sinless filled with the plenitude of God.

This is why Jesus was also fully God. He was a man in flesh, but totally filled with God. Thus he was man and God. This is why Jesus, the man, had to pray his father when walking on this earth. But he also made it clear to Philip:

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

John 14:9

See, if you saw Jesus, you saw the Father. That is the same person.

The creation is waiting for a new manifestation of God in these last days on earth:

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Romans 8:19

Yes God will soon manifest Himself into men, but this will not mean that God is many more persons... God is still one. The name He gave us to worship Him is Jesus.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:6

Here the Bible is Clear, the child that is born, the son given to us is the mighty God, the everlasting Father...

Thus, no second person of a supposed trinity in heaven.

share|improve this answer
That's not what the question was. This asks for the basis for, not against. Answers are expected to address the actual question asked not something else. That means if someone asks for an answer from a specific denominational perspective, answers need to cite sources to show what that denomination teaches. See this post if you're unclear about the guideline for answering the actual question asked. –  David 23 hours ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. –  El'endia Starman 11 hours ago

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.