Author’s note: all
definitions in this article have been taken from the Webster’s Unabridged
Dictionary (1890) unless otherwise cited.
I recently attended the Ambrose School Christmas program,
and heard some of the most amazing exhortations from the students. In between
musical performances, during the set changes, individuals take turns delivering
memorized speeches to the gathered assembly. We usually greet them with loud
applause; it’s really amazing what these kids can do. One of them spoke a
phrase that caused me to stop and think, and I haven’t been able to get it out
of my head. She said that “Christ was begotten, not created.”
So what’s the difference?
I decided to look into it, starting with my treasured five
hundred pound Webster’s Unabridged dictionary from 1890. I started with the two
most obvious words:
Beget v.t. [be and get] 1. To
procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; to get. 2. To produce as an
effect; to cause.
Create v.t. [Lat. creare, creatum, to create] 1. To bring into being; to form
out of nothing; to cause to exist. 2. To effect by agency and under the laws of
causation; to be the occasion of; to produce. 3. To invest with a new form,
office, or character; to constitute; to appoint; to make. a. Begotten; composed; created.
I then started on my hunt, looking up the words that were
used to define the original words. I came up with the following:
Procreate (the
Latin roots are pro, forward, and creare, to create) means to beget, to
generate and produce. Generate means
to produce a being similar to the parent, or to originate, especially by a
vital or chemical process; to produce; to cause. Get (both the Icelandic geta
and the German getan mean to obtain)
means to procure, to come into possession of, to persuade or to carry. The
Wordnet Dictionary defines Create as
“to bring into existence, to cause to be or to become, or to create by artistic
means.”
How about some Latin for ya? Fully fifty percent of the
English language finds its roots in Latin (hence the importance of the study of
this “dead” language). Turning to original meanings is usually highly
instructive for me, so I trawled around on the Web looking for some insight:
Wikianswers.com gives us this information on the Latin roots
of the word create (pronounced cray
AH tay): “as a noun, create is the
vocative masculine singular of creatus,
the past participle of the same verb creare.
As such, creatus is an adjective
meaning ‘created,’ ‘elected’ or ‘begotten,’ and can be used as a noun meaning “offspring.”
The vocative form is the form of direct address, so the translation of the noun
would be (addressed to one male person) ‘O offspring,’ ‘O elected one!’”
Let’s add to the mixture here, shall we, because there’s
more to the picture of Christ than what we’ve yet laid out. Take the word temporary, for instance. A quick
perusal of Roget’s Thesaurus gives us more to look into: interim, transient,
substitute, conditional. Have a look at a derivative word like temporal, and its synonyms include
unsacred, material. All this is again, highly instructive, because it’s serving
to throw more light, out to the edges, on the canvas we’re looking at, helping
us see the picture better.
But wait a tick. I seem to remember Jesus referring to
Himself as the Son of God and the Son of Man. So how about the word son? The
Slavonic word for son is synonymous
with the Sanskrit word sunu, from su, which means to beget. The word son is
also described as meaning a male child, the male issue of a parent, a male
descendant, a native or inhabitant of some special place, the produce of any
thing [Redwoods might be called the sons of the earth], and, in my old
dictionary, Jesus Christ, who is referred to as both the Son of God and as the Son
of Man.
Now, I’ve always wondered what these phrases meant; what the
difference is between them. The phrase “Son of Man” is used in the book of
Ezekiel, for example,
93 times, and
The Oxford Companion to the Bible also notes the same (1993). Son of Man is
used as a Semitic
idiom (a peculiar phrase
stamped by the usage of language) and is thought to denote
humanity or self (body, life, having one’s own body). The first time the
phrase appears in the Bible is
Numbers
23.19, where it is used in traditional Hebrew parallel poetic form (where
the same idea is expressed twice, often with different words, for clarity and
emphasis) where the phrase
ben-adam (Son
of Man) is used across from
‘iysh
(human being or man). Even with this modest scholarship we can safely deduce
that the phrase Son of Man is evocative of our concept of humanity. As for
upper or lower case treatments of the words, we owe that to the translators taking
some degree of license. I’m pretty sure the Latin, Greek, Hebrew and
Aramaic languages had no facility for upper or lower case, and indeed
no punctuation either. I know that for a fact about Latin because I studied it
for two years in high school. I remember at least that much.
As to languages, here’s a quick detour: The Hebrew Torah was
originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic (the Aramaic reflecting the years of exile in
Babylon). That intermixture produced all kinds of dialects, and Jesus may have spoken at least four major languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Latin is important because the first full
translation of the Old and New Testaments together into a single language was
the Latin Vulgate
(completed in
late 300-400 AD).
Okay, back to our little study on the Son of Man. The Oxford
Companion to the Bible (1993) explains that the Greeks rendered the phrase we
read today—Son of Man—effectively as “the son of the man,” a literal
translation of a phrase that, to the Hebrews, was instead mostly idiomatic and
had metaphorical meaning. So it’s not completely accurate. The Aramaic language
at the time included a similar phrase, bar
enas, which in the Galilean Aramaic meant “a human being,” or could be used
as a modest way to speak of oneself (to say, “I”). “Son of Man” in the New
Testament can mean a number of things, and its true meaning can only be
inferred from context. It may mean “one,” “a human,” or could be “a self-reference
provoked by awe, modesty, or humility…” (ibid). The Biblical New Testament text supports this
thesis too, because the phrase is almost exclusively used by Jesus as a self-designation.
There are only a handful of occurrences where the translated phrase is used by anyone
else.
So how do we compile all these facts? I think that we can
make a case for Christ as all in all. In other words, He is precisely and
exactly who He says He is. I think the little word study we’ve seen here
provides sufficient evidence for Christ the Begotten as He appears in
Colossians 1.15; “The image of the invisible God;”
and in John 1.1-3 as the “Word”
or
logos that the Greeks in those
days understood philosophically to be
the
foundation of all that is. So Christ is fully God, but He is also fully
man, as evidenced by the very use of the word
begotten.
Is there a difference between beget and create? How about this: in some ways they're total opposites, and in others they're identical. This search for enlightenment has at its end a vast portal to dimness of sight; it's an enigma, at least in the realm of the temporal.

Contrary to what some might think is a nail in the coffin of
the advocate for Christ, it is not a disaster that
beget is sometimes synonymous with
create. No, it actually further supports the Christian doctrine of
the Triune God, the Trinity, the Father-Son-Spirit Godhead, that Jesus Christ is
both fully God and fully man. That’s where the word
temporary comes in, because its root is the Latin
tempus, or having to do with time.
Christ, being fully God since before the foundation of the earth, submitted
himself to His creation and inserted Himself into the scope and limits of time,
the temporal. He forsook not just the throne and glory, but eternity itself to
join us. Contrary to being a kneejerk reaction to our fall from grace in the
garden, or even a reactionary search and rescue operation, it was part of His plan from the
beginning, as John 1.1 tells us. He took on manhood in order to live the perfection
of which we have always been incapable... and that was, from the beginning, prerequisite for true fellowship with our Holy God. That invasion, His begetting, still echoes
heroically in these dark places. How can
One
who was and is and is to come be created, after all? It is not possible.
But what of Jesus Christ, the Son of Man? Let's look at some of the words we've unearthed, in
bold. He is both
effect
and
cause,
generated to
get to us;
He is the
elected One, the I AM, the
only
begotten. And not
created. Christ was
appointed in the flesh to make atonement for us. Christ is the
origin and
genesis of all creation, our God incarnate, Emmanuel, who walked with us, and His story is singular throughout all cultures and tribes and nations; there is not one pagan god (i.e. a
created god, a god
created by man) that can boast of anything close: He became sin for us, took the penalty for sin in our place as
substitute, chose to become our servant, to become
material, unsacred for us. He chose to have a
self, having his own body, become a
native, an inhabitant of some special place with us here, under
temporal influences of corruption, weather, wickedness, time itself. Our Almighty God chose, before Day One, to become
ben-adam, 'iysh, the Son of Man, a
human,
begotten, though He remained fully God, the Son of Man. It is a great and noble mystery, like all scripture, that the
Elect of God is revealed by His Spirit in scripture in this
interim, this
temporary state of being, to those called and
elect of God.
I guess a word study of
elect is overdue...