- Sep 15, 2020
- 535
- 211
- 62
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
JOHN 1:14
"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father..."
A text that is appealed to, which is thought to teach the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son. Commenting on the Greek word μονογενοϛ, which is translated as only-begotten in the King James Version, Dr A Plummer says, that when it is "applied to our Lord... it refers to His eternal generation from the Father" (on John's Gospel, p.72). This is the same interpretation as given by Dr Gill, as quoted above. But, is understanding of this text is incorrect on two counts. Firstly, only-begotten is not the correct rendering of the Greek μονογενοϛ, which is a compound word, which is made up from μονοϛ (only), and γενοϛ (kind), literally, "of a single kind", or "unique" (W F Ardnt and F W Gingrich; A Greek-English Lexicon, p.529). Dr Joseph Thayer, who was a Unitarian, has an interesting definition on this Greek word.
"single of its kind, only...used of Christ, denotes the only Son of God or one who in the sense in which He Himself is the Son of God, has no brethren. He is so spoken of by John, not because the Logos which was in Him was eternally generated by God the Father (the orthodox interpretation), or came forth from the being of God just before the beginning of the world (Subordinationism), but because by the Incarnation of the Logos in Him, He is of nature or essentially Son of God" (Greek-English Lexicon, pp.417-418).
Here Dr Thayer shows that the word μονογενοϛ is not used to teach the Eternal Generation, but has to do with the Uniqueness of One Who is the Son of God, by nature. Had John wished to teach the begetting of Jesus here, then he would have used the Greek μονογεννητοϛ (J Moulton and G Milligan; The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, pp.416-417). Our only-begotten is due to the mis-rendering of the Greek μονογενοϛ in the Latin, where, instead of the reading of the Old Latin unicus (one of its kind, unique), the Latin Vulgate wrongly uses the word unigenitus (only-begotten), which no doubt was due to this doctrine (see, T Herbert Bindley; The Oecumenical Documents of the faith, p.28).
The second reason, and no less important, is the fact that in the Greek text, John did not use the preposition εκ, which could be used to denote "out of", as from a source, in which case the proponents of the Eternal Generation would have had a very strong text in their faviour. John uses the preposition παρα, which literally denotes, "from besides", which cannot be used to teach the Eternal Generation, as it does not refer to the source! It is interesting to note, that this teaching of the Son as deriving His being from the Father, was also extended to the Holy Spirit. Here also the orthodox sought from Scripture to justify their teaching, and used John 15:26, "the Spirit of Truth Who comes forth from the Father". Here, like in John 1:14, it is the preposition παρα that is used, which clearly denotes that the Father and Holy Spirit are separate Persons! However, in at least two Church Creeds, Mopsuetia, and Constantinople (both 4th century), the preposition παρα has been substituted by εκ (J N D Kelly; Early Christian Creeds, pp.188, 298), which is then taken to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the being of the Father (see, Bibdley, p.78). Unfortunately, Church fathers, such as Athanasius, when referring to this text, introduce the substitution (εκ for παρα) as if it were part of the text!
GALATIANS 4:4
"God sent forth His Son, born of a woman..."
This, and other texts, like John 3:16 (God so loved the world, that He sent His one and only Son...), are used by proponents of the Eternal Son-ship of Christ. It is argued, that since we read that "God sent His Son", then He must have been His "Son" before His Incarnation, and therefore the Eternal Son of God. I think that this line of argument is reading too much into these texts. Paul, like John, a merely stating a fact about someone Who is known to their readers as already "the Son". This language cannot be taken as an argument to prove that Jesus already the Son. John, in his opening chapter of his Gospel, is writing about John the Baptist, where he says in verse six: "there was a man sent from God, whose name was John". Now, here we read that John the Baptist was sent from God. Are we to conclude from this, that John existed as John, before this time? Surely not! Neither does it prove, that Just because we read that God sent His Son, that he needed to be the Son prior to this time. If this example is not good enough, then we shall take another. Keeping to this Gospel, we read of Jesus' Prayer in chapter 17, where in verse three we read: "And this is eternal life, that they might know thee, the only True God, and Jesus Christ Whom thou hast sent". In the last clause, we read the words, "Jesus Christ Whom thou hast sent". Are we to conclude from this, that our Lord, prior to His Incarnation, already was Jesus Christ, Whom the Father sent? This would be most absurd, as Matthew's Gospel clearly tells us, that at His birth, "His Name shall be called Jesus" (1:21), which He not have been Prior to his birth!
Likewise, we read in Luke 1:35, where the Angel tells Mary that, "the Holy one to be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God". If Jesus were already the Son, then we would have expected the Greek καλειται to have been used, which properly denotes "is called the Son of God". The text actually reads κληθησεται, which is in the future tense, where the above translation "shall be called", is correct. The grammar of the Greek text is very precise. As important is the text in Hebrews chapter one, where we read in verse five: "and again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son". Again, it the future εσομαι (will be) and εσται (shall be) are used. This is a prophecy that is found in 2 Samuel 7:14, which is speaking of the Messiah, Who shall be known as the Son of God. There can be no doubt that Scripture is clear to the fact, that the Son-ship of Jesus belongs to His Incarnation, and never used of Him prior to that!
ACTS 13:33
"Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee"
This is one of the strongest texts of those who teach the Eternal Son-ship, and Eternal Generation doctrines, as this one text is supposed to teach both doctrines!
Here we have the English word "art" (are), which is a translation of the Greek συ, and which is in the present tense. Then, we also have the word "begotten", which is from the Greek γεγεννηκα, which literally means, "to bring forth". Two factors will prove that this text, which is quoted from Psalm 2:7, does not teach either of these two doctrines. Firstly, by saying "thou art", God the Father is making an affirmative statement about Jesus Christ, that He is His Son. Likewise at Jesus' Baptism, and Transfiguration, where we read the Father saying: "This is (εστιν, present tense) My Son...", words that are spoken to reassure the disciples. Since the text is a prophecy in the Psalm, we cannot build the doctrine of the Eternal Son-ship on it. Secondly, the key to the timing of these words, whether they refer to the eternal past, or to Jesus' Incarnation, will be found in the words, "this day have I begotten thee". Psalm 2:7 is quoted three times in the New Testament. The one time in Acts, as we have seen above, and twice in Hebrews (1:5; 5:5). As we shall see, the "this day", far from being a reference to some time in the past, which is seen by some as "eternal", is a clear reference to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the day when He was "conceived" in the womb of the virgin Mary, by the act of God the Holy Spirit. To be able to have a perfect understanding of these quotations, I feel that we ought to spent some time looking at each one.
ACTS 13:33
Here we have Paul addressing his audience in a synagogue, when he says: "God had fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus; as it is written in the second Psalm: 'Thou art My Son, this day I have begotten thee'" There are some who seen in these words, a reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because of the use of the words "raised up". But, this is incorrect, as in verse 22 we read of God raising up David (same Greek word), which can only refer to his birth, as David has not yet been raised from the dead! In fact, in verses 30 and 34 of this same chapter in Acts, we read the words: "raised Him ("up". ver34)from the dead", where it clearly speaks of our Lords resurrection. Verse 34 begins with the words: "and as concerning that He raised Him up from the dead..."; which clearly shows that verse 33 cannot be a reference to Jesus' resurrection. (see, F F Bruce; The Acts of the Apostles; Greek Text, p.269; and, The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. II, pp.295-296). I am aware of the reading of verse 33 in the King James Version, where it has it: "In that He raised up Jesus again"; where "again" has no corresponding word in the Greek!
HEBREWS 1:5
"For unto which of the Angels said He at any time: 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee...and again when He brings forth the First-born..." (also verse 6a).
Here verse six holds the answer to the words in verse five (This day...). Here Paul says "again, when He brings forth the First-born". By using the Greek παλιν, Paul meant, "once more" (E Robinson; Greek-English Lexicon, p.586; J Parkhurst Greek-English Lexicon, p.453). Verse six clearly refers to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a fact that no one one will dispute. With παλιν Paul wishes to connect verse six (the Second Coming), with verse five, which teaches the First Coming, or else the use of παλιν in verse six is superfluous. There can be no doubt that verse five refers to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
HEBREWS 5:5
"So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made a High Priest; but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee"
Here we read of Jesus as our High Priest, where His appointment was not of Himself, but it is the Father Who said to Him, "This day...", Who appointed Him. This text ties in with the references in Acts and Hebrews 1:5, which both refer to the Incarnation of Jesus. It is highly improbable that the reference in Acts, and the one in Hebrews 1 would refer to Christ's Incarnation, whereas the reference in Hebrews 5, speaks of another time.
It is further argued, that passages like John 3:13, and 6:62, which speak of "the Son of man" as coming from heaven, clearly indicate that Jesus must have been the Son in heaven before He came down. But, these Scriptures by no mean prove the Eternal Son-ship. The Title The Son of man is found in the book of Daniel in the Old Testament, chapter seven. This Title is used to describe the Messiah, something that Jesus was not prior to His birth. Now, had John 6:62, for example, read "What and if ye shall see the Son ascend up where He was before?"; then proponents of the Eternal Son-ship doctrine would have had a very strong text on their side. But nothing can be gained by them from the text reading Son of man. It is quite evident, that had Jesus wished to show that He was the Son prior to His Incarnation, then He would have said "Son of God", and not "Son of man". The former refers to His Deity (Divine Nature), whereas the latter to His Humanity (human nature), and which is a Title of the Messiah. It is like 1 Corinthians 15:47, where Paul's speaks of "the second man", Who is Jesus Christ, Whom he says "is the Lord from heaven". This reading which dates from the middle of the second century (textual evidence), has been corrupted to read: "the second man is from heaven", which has led to heresy, where it is claimed that Paul here teaches that Jesus was a heavenly man (that is, according to His human nature) before His birth from Mary. But Paul clearly says that "the second man is the Lord from heaven", like he says in 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh". It never says in Scripture that "the Son (or, Son of God) was made flesh", but it clearly does say as we have seen in 1 Timothy 3:16, and in John 1:14, that "God became flesh"
Scripture does say that "in the beginning was the Word". It also says that "God was manifest". And that Jesus is "the Lord (YHWH) from heaven". There is no doubt in my mind that the Son-ship of Jesus Christ, belongs to His Incarnation, prior to which He was not the Son. He assumed the Title Son, because at his Incarnation He took on a role where he became subject to God the Father, thus showing the perfect Father-Son relationship in the Godhead.
"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father..."
A text that is appealed to, which is thought to teach the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son. Commenting on the Greek word μονογενοϛ, which is translated as only-begotten in the King James Version, Dr A Plummer says, that when it is "applied to our Lord... it refers to His eternal generation from the Father" (on John's Gospel, p.72). This is the same interpretation as given by Dr Gill, as quoted above. But, is understanding of this text is incorrect on two counts. Firstly, only-begotten is not the correct rendering of the Greek μονογενοϛ, which is a compound word, which is made up from μονοϛ (only), and γενοϛ (kind), literally, "of a single kind", or "unique" (W F Ardnt and F W Gingrich; A Greek-English Lexicon, p.529). Dr Joseph Thayer, who was a Unitarian, has an interesting definition on this Greek word.
"single of its kind, only...used of Christ, denotes the only Son of God or one who in the sense in which He Himself is the Son of God, has no brethren. He is so spoken of by John, not because the Logos which was in Him was eternally generated by God the Father (the orthodox interpretation), or came forth from the being of God just before the beginning of the world (Subordinationism), but because by the Incarnation of the Logos in Him, He is of nature or essentially Son of God" (Greek-English Lexicon, pp.417-418).
Here Dr Thayer shows that the word μονογενοϛ is not used to teach the Eternal Generation, but has to do with the Uniqueness of One Who is the Son of God, by nature. Had John wished to teach the begetting of Jesus here, then he would have used the Greek μονογεννητοϛ (J Moulton and G Milligan; The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, pp.416-417). Our only-begotten is due to the mis-rendering of the Greek μονογενοϛ in the Latin, where, instead of the reading of the Old Latin unicus (one of its kind, unique), the Latin Vulgate wrongly uses the word unigenitus (only-begotten), which no doubt was due to this doctrine (see, T Herbert Bindley; The Oecumenical Documents of the faith, p.28).
The second reason, and no less important, is the fact that in the Greek text, John did not use the preposition εκ, which could be used to denote "out of", as from a source, in which case the proponents of the Eternal Generation would have had a very strong text in their faviour. John uses the preposition παρα, which literally denotes, "from besides", which cannot be used to teach the Eternal Generation, as it does not refer to the source! It is interesting to note, that this teaching of the Son as deriving His being from the Father, was also extended to the Holy Spirit. Here also the orthodox sought from Scripture to justify their teaching, and used John 15:26, "the Spirit of Truth Who comes forth from the Father". Here, like in John 1:14, it is the preposition παρα that is used, which clearly denotes that the Father and Holy Spirit are separate Persons! However, in at least two Church Creeds, Mopsuetia, and Constantinople (both 4th century), the preposition παρα has been substituted by εκ (J N D Kelly; Early Christian Creeds, pp.188, 298), which is then taken to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the being of the Father (see, Bibdley, p.78). Unfortunately, Church fathers, such as Athanasius, when referring to this text, introduce the substitution (εκ for παρα) as if it were part of the text!
GALATIANS 4:4
"God sent forth His Son, born of a woman..."
This, and other texts, like John 3:16 (God so loved the world, that He sent His one and only Son...), are used by proponents of the Eternal Son-ship of Christ. It is argued, that since we read that "God sent His Son", then He must have been His "Son" before His Incarnation, and therefore the Eternal Son of God. I think that this line of argument is reading too much into these texts. Paul, like John, a merely stating a fact about someone Who is known to their readers as already "the Son". This language cannot be taken as an argument to prove that Jesus already the Son. John, in his opening chapter of his Gospel, is writing about John the Baptist, where he says in verse six: "there was a man sent from God, whose name was John". Now, here we read that John the Baptist was sent from God. Are we to conclude from this, that John existed as John, before this time? Surely not! Neither does it prove, that Just because we read that God sent His Son, that he needed to be the Son prior to this time. If this example is not good enough, then we shall take another. Keeping to this Gospel, we read of Jesus' Prayer in chapter 17, where in verse three we read: "And this is eternal life, that they might know thee, the only True God, and Jesus Christ Whom thou hast sent". In the last clause, we read the words, "Jesus Christ Whom thou hast sent". Are we to conclude from this, that our Lord, prior to His Incarnation, already was Jesus Christ, Whom the Father sent? This would be most absurd, as Matthew's Gospel clearly tells us, that at His birth, "His Name shall be called Jesus" (1:21), which He not have been Prior to his birth!
Likewise, we read in Luke 1:35, where the Angel tells Mary that, "the Holy one to be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God". If Jesus were already the Son, then we would have expected the Greek καλειται to have been used, which properly denotes "is called the Son of God". The text actually reads κληθησεται, which is in the future tense, where the above translation "shall be called", is correct. The grammar of the Greek text is very precise. As important is the text in Hebrews chapter one, where we read in verse five: "and again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son". Again, it the future εσομαι (will be) and εσται (shall be) are used. This is a prophecy that is found in 2 Samuel 7:14, which is speaking of the Messiah, Who shall be known as the Son of God. There can be no doubt that Scripture is clear to the fact, that the Son-ship of Jesus belongs to His Incarnation, and never used of Him prior to that!
ACTS 13:33
"Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee"
This is one of the strongest texts of those who teach the Eternal Son-ship, and Eternal Generation doctrines, as this one text is supposed to teach both doctrines!
Here we have the English word "art" (are), which is a translation of the Greek συ, and which is in the present tense. Then, we also have the word "begotten", which is from the Greek γεγεννηκα, which literally means, "to bring forth". Two factors will prove that this text, which is quoted from Psalm 2:7, does not teach either of these two doctrines. Firstly, by saying "thou art", God the Father is making an affirmative statement about Jesus Christ, that He is His Son. Likewise at Jesus' Baptism, and Transfiguration, where we read the Father saying: "This is (εστιν, present tense) My Son...", words that are spoken to reassure the disciples. Since the text is a prophecy in the Psalm, we cannot build the doctrine of the Eternal Son-ship on it. Secondly, the key to the timing of these words, whether they refer to the eternal past, or to Jesus' Incarnation, will be found in the words, "this day have I begotten thee". Psalm 2:7 is quoted three times in the New Testament. The one time in Acts, as we have seen above, and twice in Hebrews (1:5; 5:5). As we shall see, the "this day", far from being a reference to some time in the past, which is seen by some as "eternal", is a clear reference to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the day when He was "conceived" in the womb of the virgin Mary, by the act of God the Holy Spirit. To be able to have a perfect understanding of these quotations, I feel that we ought to spent some time looking at each one.
ACTS 13:33
Here we have Paul addressing his audience in a synagogue, when he says: "God had fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus; as it is written in the second Psalm: 'Thou art My Son, this day I have begotten thee'" There are some who seen in these words, a reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because of the use of the words "raised up". But, this is incorrect, as in verse 22 we read of God raising up David (same Greek word), which can only refer to his birth, as David has not yet been raised from the dead! In fact, in verses 30 and 34 of this same chapter in Acts, we read the words: "raised Him ("up". ver34)from the dead", where it clearly speaks of our Lords resurrection. Verse 34 begins with the words: "and as concerning that He raised Him up from the dead..."; which clearly shows that verse 33 cannot be a reference to Jesus' resurrection. (see, F F Bruce; The Acts of the Apostles; Greek Text, p.269; and, The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. II, pp.295-296). I am aware of the reading of verse 33 in the King James Version, where it has it: "In that He raised up Jesus again"; where "again" has no corresponding word in the Greek!
HEBREWS 1:5
"For unto which of the Angels said He at any time: 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee...and again when He brings forth the First-born..." (also verse 6a).
Here verse six holds the answer to the words in verse five (This day...). Here Paul says "again, when He brings forth the First-born". By using the Greek παλιν, Paul meant, "once more" (E Robinson; Greek-English Lexicon, p.586; J Parkhurst Greek-English Lexicon, p.453). Verse six clearly refers to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a fact that no one one will dispute. With παλιν Paul wishes to connect verse six (the Second Coming), with verse five, which teaches the First Coming, or else the use of παλιν in verse six is superfluous. There can be no doubt that verse five refers to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
HEBREWS 5:5
"So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made a High Priest; but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee"
Here we read of Jesus as our High Priest, where His appointment was not of Himself, but it is the Father Who said to Him, "This day...", Who appointed Him. This text ties in with the references in Acts and Hebrews 1:5, which both refer to the Incarnation of Jesus. It is highly improbable that the reference in Acts, and the one in Hebrews 1 would refer to Christ's Incarnation, whereas the reference in Hebrews 5, speaks of another time.
It is further argued, that passages like John 3:13, and 6:62, which speak of "the Son of man" as coming from heaven, clearly indicate that Jesus must have been the Son in heaven before He came down. But, these Scriptures by no mean prove the Eternal Son-ship. The Title The Son of man is found in the book of Daniel in the Old Testament, chapter seven. This Title is used to describe the Messiah, something that Jesus was not prior to His birth. Now, had John 6:62, for example, read "What and if ye shall see the Son ascend up where He was before?"; then proponents of the Eternal Son-ship doctrine would have had a very strong text on their side. But nothing can be gained by them from the text reading Son of man. It is quite evident, that had Jesus wished to show that He was the Son prior to His Incarnation, then He would have said "Son of God", and not "Son of man". The former refers to His Deity (Divine Nature), whereas the latter to His Humanity (human nature), and which is a Title of the Messiah. It is like 1 Corinthians 15:47, where Paul's speaks of "the second man", Who is Jesus Christ, Whom he says "is the Lord from heaven". This reading which dates from the middle of the second century (textual evidence), has been corrupted to read: "the second man is from heaven", which has led to heresy, where it is claimed that Paul here teaches that Jesus was a heavenly man (that is, according to His human nature) before His birth from Mary. But Paul clearly says that "the second man is the Lord from heaven", like he says in 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh". It never says in Scripture that "the Son (or, Son of God) was made flesh", but it clearly does say as we have seen in 1 Timothy 3:16, and in John 1:14, that "God became flesh"
Scripture does say that "in the beginning was the Word". It also says that "God was manifest". And that Jesus is "the Lord (YHWH) from heaven". There is no doubt in my mind that the Son-ship of Jesus Christ, belongs to His Incarnation, prior to which He was not the Son. He assumed the Title Son, because at his Incarnation He took on a role where he became subject to God the Father, thus showing the perfect Father-Son relationship in the Godhead.
