8 May 2025
"Begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father..."
The interplay of the Divine with human life
By Stefan Kaminski
In some ways, this next phrase of the Nicene symbol simply summarises and reiterates what has been said in the previous two phrases. The symbol has already made reference to Jesus Christ as the “only begotten”, and with the phrase, “God from God, light from light…” it explicated in a more poetic and elaborated form the Son’s being “of the same substance with the Father” (also rendered as “consubstantial”). Thus the previous two posts have already touched on the significance of the Incarnation and on the divinity of Christ.
The phrase we are left with today presents an interesting opportunity for reflection on the analogy between the human and the divine, following the logic of our creation in the image of God. To be begotten rather than made, and to be of the same substance as one’s father (and mother!), is of course also precisely true of the human experience of generating or being generated, when considered within the limits of the human realm.
The human being is only able to beget, not to “make”, another human being. This truth is reflected from the very first human generation recorded in Scripture: “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have begotten a man with the help of the Lord'” (Genesis 4:1). Here of course lies the difference – of an infinite order of magnitude – between the divine and human planes: that God alone generates and is not made. It is nonetheless a testament to the real dignity with which God has endowed us that, firstly, the process of human generation is absolutely and intricately one of cooperation with the Divine process of creation (however much or little we are aware of this tremendous fact), and that secondly, we are indeed entrusted with the responsibility and privilege of generating a person.
The first of these two points – the joining together of divine creation and human begetting in the generation of a human being – is of course why the Christian tradition has adopted the term “procreation” (as opposed to “reproduction”, where other animals are concerned). This word captures the core mystery of creation that is present in a new and particular way every time a human person is conceived, acknowledging that there is an aspect of this conception that is purely the work of God, and that we are cooperators with Him in generating new life.
“Begotten, not made”, could thus well serve as a rather succint slogan in the campaign for the dignity of the unborn child. It can express the fact that we, as humans, are not the makers of our children: they do indeed have a Maker, none other than God Himself. This is why the human entity, from the very start of its life, is sacred ground, and there is no room in the Church’s magisterium to allow for a deliberate act of “unmaking” by human hands.
However, the other, and more-overlooked side of this sanctity of human life is the question of what is referred to as “assisted reproductive technology” (ART), of which IVF (in vitro fertilisation) is the most readily recognisable form (noting of course the choice of the term “reproduction” to describe human generativity). It is clear that the emotional weight and dynamic behind the desire to conceive a child, as opposed to aborting one, is rather different. But in terms of the objective reality, the same principle – “begotten, not made” – applies. The sacredness and mystery of the human person rests on the primacy of God’s will and wisdom in creating them, in the same way that the union of husband and wife also retains its sacred character insofar as it respects its God-given dynamic. Choosing to take control of the process of “making” a person – of having a say over their existence, be it one way or the other – is to transgress the boundary between creature and Creator, between human and God.
This first and more fundamental question of the nature of human generation also serves as an important foundation for the second point we made: the privilege and responsibility with which parents are entrusted. Equally important as it is for a child to come to understand that it is from God Himself that they have received the gift of life, so it is that begetting should constitute the complementary aspect of the same experience of for the parents. “I have begotten a man with the help of the Lord!”, cries Eve. The joy and recognition of what has been given by the Lord – of something received that is beyond the power of one’s own making – should be the foundational experience of parenthood.
Taken together, these two points find beautiful expression in the words of St Pope John Paul II: “Uniting with each other (in the conjugal act)… man and woman, rediscover, so to speak, every time and in a special way, the mystery of creation” (general audience, 21 November 1979). The physical expression of marital union, in its complementary structure of male and female, is the privileged locus of human participation in God’s creative action.
Pastorally-speaking, it is important to recognise that the full splendour of our faith often fails to be fully realised within the dynamic of this fallen world. As Catholics, we know that such shortcomings and failures do not fall outside of God’s Providence, and it is especially necessary to have this in mind regarding the subject of “reproductive technologies”. An explanation of the theo-logic of the Catholic response to ART must be accompanied by the reaffirmation that every person – regardless of the story of their conception – is nonetheless made by God. However lacking and dysfunctional the process that leads to a person’s being, God nonetheless infuses into those cells a soul that is in His image and of His creation, loved and dignified in His Providence.
At the same time, a consciousness of the real dignity and love that God desires for every person should itself be a motive to promote and educate human life in its intended interplay with the Divine life: “begotten, not made”!