5 Non-Negotiables from the Church Fathers on the Incarnation

Johann

Active Member
5 Non-Negotiables from the Church Fathers on the Incarnation



Many churches across the denominational spectrum celebrate the incarnation of Jesus Christ around this time of year. We sing Christmas carols and hymns about the incarnate deity, and yet many Christians still lack a rudimentary understanding of what took place in the incarnation. Now, let’s be honest, the incarnation is one of the great mysteries of the faith! We’re never fully going to wrap our minds around it. Yet, I wonder if it might not do us good to hear from (perhaps for the first time) some of the men who, over the centuries, helped shape the church’s theology on this very question.

Irenaeus (130-202) was one of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith. In his most famous work, Against Heresies, he described the apostolic Christian faith as“believing in one God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things in them, through Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who, on account of his surpassing love for his creation, endured to be born of the Virgin, himself in himself uniting man with God” (III.IV.2).

Note here that, for Irenaeus, it is the love of Jesus that leads to the incarnation and that the incarnation was itself in some way a “saving” moment for humanity. When God the Son took flesh from the Virgin’s womb, he was uniting our nature with his and, in doing so, paved the way for the restoration of fallen men and women.

The first non-negotiable we find in the Fathers is that the incarnation is integral to human salvation.
Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390) was another early Father who helped in shaping the church’s doctrine of Christ and the Trinity. He wrote of Jesus:

He is called man, not only that through his body he may be apprehended by embodied creatures, whereas otherwise this would be impossible because of his incomprehensible nature; but also that by himself he may sanctify humanity, and be as it were a leaven to the whole lump; and by uniting to himself that which was condemned may release it from all condemnation, becoming for all men all things we are, except sin – body, soul, mind. (Theological Oration IV.21)
Like Irenaeus, Gregory believed that in some sense the incarnation was restorative for human nature. God, by uniting humanity to himself, was making it possible for fallen mankind to be sanctified. In order to do this, Jesus had to fully embrace humanity. Since our whole nature had become corrupt through sin, all of it – body, soul, and mind – needed to be renewed. God the Word now has a human body, and soul, and mind, just like we do, because he became everything we are, save sin, so that he might save us from our sins!

The second non-negotiable is that God the Son became just like we are except for sin.
The greatest and most influential theologian of the Western church, Augustine (354-430), wrote a lot about Christ in his work On the Trinity:

And if I am asked how the incarnation itself was brought to pass, I reply that the Word of God itself was made flesh, that is, was made man, yet not turned and changed into that which was made; but so made, that there should be there not only the Word of God and the flesh of man, but also the rational soul of man, and that this whole should both be called God on account of God, and man on account of man. (IV.21)
In the Incarnation, God became what he was not without ever ceasing to be what he always was. He assumed humanity but always remained the eternal and divine Person, only now enfleshed!

The third non-negotiable is that in the Incarnation, God didn’t become something else in the sense that he ceased to be God.
Leo I (400-461) wrote what came to be called the “Tome of Leo,” which was very influential during the Council of Chalcedon (451). That council developed a confession which stated that the two natures of Christ joined together in one Person without being confused, changed, divided, or separated. Leo’s Tome stated,

While the distinctness of both natures and substances is preserved, and both meet in one Person, lowlines is assumed by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity; and in order to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature has been united to the passible, so that as the appropriate remedy for our ills, one and the same “Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” might from one element be capable of dying, and from the other be incapable. Therefore, in the entire and perfect nature of very Man was born Very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours. (Leo’s Tomb 3)
This is similar to what another Father, Cyril of Alexandria (376-444), had to say: “Godhead is one thing, and manhood is another thing, considered in the perspective of their respective and intrinsic beings, but in the case of Christ they come together in a mysterious and incomprehensible union without confusion or change” (On the Unity of Christ).

The fourth non-negotiable is that the two natures joined in the incarnation are distinct yet united inseparably.
John of Damascus (675-749) was a Syrian monk whose Exposition on the Orthodox Faith is considered one of the greatest theological works of the Eastern Fathers. In it he wrote,

Now, when God the Word became incarnate, He did not assume His human nature as taken in a purely theoretical sense – for that would have been no real incarnation, but a fraudulent and fictitious one…For He assumed the first-fruits of our clay not as self-subsistent and having been an individual previously and as such taken on by Him, but as having its subsistence in His Person. Thus, this Person of the Word of God became Person to the flesh, and in this way ‘the Word was made flesh, and that without any change, and the flesh without transformation was made Word, and God was made man. (Orthodox Faith III.11)
The Word Incarnate has a human and a divine nature, but he isn’t a human and divine Person. In the Incarnation, the Divine Second Person of the Trinity assumed humanity in such a way that the humanity subsisted in the Person of God the Word. This is important because, if God the Son assumed a human person (as opposed to humanity in general), you would have two different persons accomplishing salvation. According to the teaching of Scripture and the ancient church, in the Incarnation the Divine Person takes human nature to himself.

The fifth non-negotiable is that One Divine Person, the Eternal Word, is the subject of the Incarnation.
You might be thinking, “Goodness! This all seems so obscure and impractical.” For the men above, this doctrine was deep (and difficult), but it wasn’t impractical. For them it was a matter of the most personal question any of us could have, “how am I right with God?” They recognized that due to sin, mankind was separated from God. They understood that we couldn’t through our own efforts restore ourselves and ascend to God, so we needed a Divine Savior. In the Incarnation, God united in Himself that which had grown distant: the divine and the human. By coming and taking human flesh, the Word was enabled to suffer and die in that flesh for our sakes, and when he rose from the dead, he lifted up all those who are united to him by faith and seated them with him (Eph. 2:6). During this season of the incarnation, may we all stand in wonder at the mystery of the Word Incarnate, the divine clothed in human frailty for us and for our salvation.



J.
 
No Incarnation no salvation , had He not been God He could not of been the Savior of the world , had He not been man He could not of died for our sins according to the scriptures. It’s essential that Christ be both God and man, human and Divine. Without either one man has no Savior for their sins. We have plenty of scriptures that affirm this is true.

hope this helps !!!
 
No Incarnation no salvation , had He not been God He could not of been the Savior of the world , had He not been man He could not of died for our sins according to the scriptures. It’s essential that Christ be both God and man, human and Divine. Without either one man has no Savior for their sins. We have plenty of scriptures that affirm this is true.

hope this helps !!!

Yep. It is the quality of Divinity within His sacrifice that establishes the value of the Atonement. God Incarnate dying for us.
 
No Incarnation no salvation , had He not been God He could not of been the Savior of the world , had He not been man He could not of died for our sins according to the scriptures. It’s essential that Christ be both God and man, human and Divine. Without either one man has no Savior for their sins. We have plenty of scriptures that affirm this is true.

hope this helps !!!
Good morning, civic, @Johann, @TedT and friends from the Forum

Regardless of what we may believe in regard to Jesus deity, the salvific mission of Jesus did not require his deity.
It required to be originated, authorized and assigned by God, a different Person.

The Bible provides firm evidence of this:

  1. Messianic prophecies always spoke about the Messiah in terms of a Servant, Prince, King, Shepherd, Prophet, who is not God, but sent by God and upon which God performs things. This is just an example: "Smitten by God, and afflicted" "And YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" "Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief". (Isaiah 53:4,6, 10)
  2. When Jesus described his own mission, he read from the Book of Isaiah and refered in third person to God as the Person who had sent him and anointed him: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
  3. Jesus performed his mission presenting his credentials as Messiah, Sent by God, receiving authority from God, speaking what God told Him to speak, performing what God told Him to perform (John 3:16, 5:30, 8:28, 8:54, 12:49)
  4. When referring to Jesus salvific mission, the apostles refer to God, as a third party in such mission: It was God who attested Jesus miracles (Acts 2:22). It was God who raised Jesus from dead (Acts 2:32; 3:26; 4:10; 5:30; 13:33), it was God who exalted Jesus (Acts 2:36; 3:13)
  5. The mission of Jesus as a Mediator between Man and the Only God is explained from his position as a Man. "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).
  6. In describing the mission of Jesus to reconcile men with God, God is, again, referred to as a third person. "He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross" (Ephesians 2:16) For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son (Romans 5:10,11) Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:18)
  7. Jesus finishes his salvific mission with men by referring to his God in third person (John 20:17, Rev 3:12)
 
Good morning, civic, @Johann, @TedT and friends from the Forum

Regardless of what we may believe in regard to Jesus deity, the salvific mission of Jesus did not require his deity.
It required to be originated, authorized and assigned by God, a different Person.

The Bible provides firm evidence of this:

  1. Messianic prophecies always spoke about the Messiah in terms of a Servant, Prince, King, Shepherd, Prophet, who is not God, but sent by God and upon which God performs things. This is just an example: "Smitten by God, and afflicted" "And YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" "Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief". (Isaiah 53:4,6, 10)
  2. When Jesus described his own mission, he read from the Book of Isaiah and refered in third person to God as the Person who had sent him and anointed him: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
  3. Jesus performed his mission presenting his credentials as Messiah, Sent by God, receiving authority from God, speaking what God told Him to speak, performing what God told Him to perform (John 3:16, 5:30, 8:28, 8:54, 12:49)
  4. When referring to Jesus salvific mission, the apostles refer to God, as a third party in such mission: It was God who attested Jesus miracles (Acts 2:22). It was God who raised Jesus from dead (Acts 2:32; 3:26; 4:10; 5:30; 13:33), it was God who exalted Jesus (Acts 2:36; 3:13)
  5. The mission of Jesus as a Mediator between Man and the Only God is explained from his position as a Man. "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).
  6. In describing the mission of Jesus to reconcile men with God, God is, again, referred to as a third person. "He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross" (Ephesians 2:16) For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son (Romans 5:10,11) Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:18)
  7. Jesus finishes his salvific mission with men by referring to his God in third person (John 20:17, Rev 3:12)
This is where your human understanding fails and your religion kicks in.

It absolutely required Hs Deity - No Deity, no salvation, no redemption, no payment , no atonement for sins once and for all.

Psalm 49:7-8 states, "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the ransom/price for his life",since the price of redeeming him is too costly, one should forever stop trying
 
Messianic prophecies always spoke about the Messiah... who is not God

He was indeed called the Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6, and "God is with us" in Isaiah 7:14. We see, in fact, the often refrain that salvation can only come from God himself, and he will not share this glory with another.

I looked, but there was no one to help, And I wondered That there was no one to uphold; Therefore My own arm brought salvation for Me; And My own fury, it sustained Me. (Isa. 63:5 NKJ)

Notice that this passage echoes the Suffering Messiah, in Isaiah 53, who is directly called "The arm of the Lord."

Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant (Isa. 53:1-2 NKJ)

And of course we have the New Testament telling us the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father was revealed to us, he who was with God in the beginning, and is God, and that God purchased souls with his own Blood. Granted there is some textual variation here, but the evidence is strong these are the original readings.

When Jesus described his own mission, he read from the Book of Isaiah and refered in third person to God as the Person

Scripture attributes personal attributes to three distinct divine persons, who all possess divine attributes.

Thus we expect to see interaction, relationship and hierarchy within the Trinity.

The mission of Jesus as a Mediator between Man and the Only God is explained from his position as a Man. "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus"(1 Tim 2:5).

It does not stop there—to be the Mediator, he must have a claim on both parties of some kind. It is said God himself was reconciling the world in his Son—nothing less. Thus we see that our Great High Priest was more excellent than all the angels, and is described as the radiance of God's own glory and nothing less than the very substance of God's own being, who was in the very form of God, himself, not considering it thievery to claim complete equality with God.

In describing the mission of Jesus to reconcile men with God, God is, again, referred to as a third person. "He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross" (Ephesians 2:16) For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son (Romans 5:10,11) Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:18)

Jesus, indeed, says "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life," as he tells us he is a ransom for many, and that the cup of his own Blood is being shed for the remission of sins, that he is "The Resurrection, and the Life," and before Abraham ever was, "He is," the very meaning of God's name YHWH.

Now, to see the divine nature of the Christ, we must recognize the divine attributes Scripture has granted him, and this we can do with 12 simple supports, as I have posted elsewhere in this forum in times past (forgive the repeat for long time perusers):

12 reasons I believe Jesus is God:
1. A mere creation cannot have eternally co-existed with God.
2. A mere creation cannot have co-created the world.
3. A mere creation cannot be enough to atone for an infinite crime against holiness.
4. A mere creation cannot contain the principle of life itself inside it.
5. A mere creation cannot destroy the power of death in itself.
6. A mere creation cannot receive praise and devotion from every created thing.
7. A mere creation cannot hold all authority in heaven and earth.
8. A mere creation would have admonitions not to idolize or worship it.
9. A mere creation cannot potentially directly live inside of all human beings.
10. A mere creation would not ever be directly associated with anything divine.
11. A mere creation cannot demand that nothing be loved more than it as it would be commanding idolatry.
12. A mere creation cannot call itself the only absolute way and truth.
At the point you are willing to accept all 12 things, it is virtually indistinguishable for me from God anyway, and Jesus is God to you whether you use the term "God" or not. The Father is just an order of rank above Jesus with the same attributes and this corresponds to Trinitarian theology. I believe we can find ample Scriptural evidence to support the above 12 points in both Paul and the rest of Scripture. Also when certain verses began to make me feel unsure of this, I have prayed about this directly to God for many years and received personal confirmation that this is the truth.​
So the question may well then be asked, "Why isn't it stated more clearly?" That's a good questions and I give a couple of reasons.​
1. It is not a doctrine essential to salvation. It is very clear the 12 disciples during Christ's earthly minister did not at all fully realize who he was, and simply had a bare faith that he was a Savior, yet Jesus clearly says they were currently saved with their names written in heaven.​
2. Doctrines are not required to be written out in the clearest way possible, but only to be written out in an essentially deducible way. We know the Bible condemns pedophilia without a verse that says "Thou shalt not molest children."​
3. It is the "glory of kings to search out a matter" and all doctrine doesn't come by intellectually parsing the words of Scripture, but by direct revelation from God, as Jesus said "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you Peter."​
In light of this, I invite anyone to continue on their journey with a sincere heart towards God and fervent prayer, and am confident that in the end, if we continue and do not quit with a true humble and teachable heart, the Spirit of God will always eventually get us to true beliefs.​
 
He was indeed called the Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6, and "God is with us" in Isaiah 7:14. We see, in fact, the often refrain that salvation can only come from God himself, and he will not share this glory with another.

I looked, but there was no one to help, And I wondered That there was no one to uphold; Therefore My own arm brought salvation for Me; And My own fury, it sustained Me. (Isa. 63:5 NKJ)

Notice that this passage echoes the Suffering Messiah, in Isaiah 53, who is directly called "The arm of the Lord."

Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant (Isa. 53:1-2 NKJ)

And of course we have the New Testament telling us the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father was revealed to us, he who was with God in the beginning, and is God, and that God purchased souls with his own Blood. Granted there is some textual variation here, but the evidence is strong these are the original readings.



Scripture attributes personal attributes to three distinct divine persons, who all possess divine attributes.

Thus we expect to see interaction, relationship and hierarchy within the Trinity.



It does not stop there—to be the Mediator, he must have a claim on both parties of some kind. It is said God himself was reconciling the world in his Son—nothing less. Thus we see that our Great High Priest was more excellent than all the angels, and is described as the radiance of God's own glory and nothing less than the very substance of God's own being, who was in the very form of God, himself, not considering it thievery to claim complete equality with God.



Jesus, indeed, says "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life," as he tells us he is a ransom for many, and that the cup of his own Blood is being shed for the remission of sins, that he is "The Resurrection, and the Life," and before Abraham ever was, "He is," the very meaning of God's name YHWH.

Now, to see the divine nature of the Christ, we must recognize the divine attributes Scripture has granted him, and this we can do with 12 simple supports, as I have posted elsewhere in this forum in times past (forgive the repeat for long time perusers):

12 reasons I believe Jesus is God:
1. A mere creation cannot have eternally co-existed with God.
2. A mere creation cannot have co-created the world.
3. A mere creation cannot be enough to atone for an infinite crime against holiness.
4. A mere creation cannot contain the principle of life itself inside it.
5. A mere creation cannot destroy the power of death in itself.
6. A mere creation cannot receive praise and devotion from every created thing.
7. A mere creation cannot hold all authority in heaven and earth.
8. A mere creation would have admonitions not to idolize or worship it.
9. A mere creation cannot potentially directly live inside of all human beings.
10. A mere creation would not ever be directly associated with anything divine.
11. A mere creation cannot demand that nothing be loved more than it as it would be commanding idolatry.
12. A mere creation cannot call itself the only absolute way and truth.
At the point you are willing to accept all 12 things, it is virtually indistinguishable for me from God anyway, and Jesus is God to you whether you use the term "God" or not. The Father is just an order of rank above Jesus with the same attributes and this corresponds to Trinitarian theology. I believe we can find ample Scriptural evidence to support the above 12 points in both Paul and the rest of Scripture. Also when certain verses began to make me feel unsure of this, I have prayed about this directly to God for many years and received personal confirmation that this is the truth.​
So the question may well then be asked, "Why isn't it stated more clearly?" That's a good questions and I give a couple of reasons.​
1. It is not a doctrine essential to salvation. It is very clear the 12 disciples during Christ's earthly minister did not at all fully realize who he was, and simply had a bare faith that he was a Savior, yet Jesus clearly says they were currently saved with their names written in heaven.​
2. Doctrines are not required to be written out in the clearest way possible, but only to be written out in an essentially deducible way. We know the Bible condemns pedophilia without a verse that says "Thou shalt not molest children."​
3. It is the "glory of kings to search out a matter" and all doctrine doesn't come by intellectually parsing the words of Scripture, but by direct revelation from God, as Jesus said "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you Peter."​
In light of this, I invite anyone to continue on their journey with a sincere heart towards God and fervent prayer, and am confident that in the end, if we continue and do not quit with a true humble and teachable heart, the Spirit of God will always eventually get us to true beliefs.​
Excellent response
 
2. Doctrines are not required to be written out in the clearest way possible, but only to be written out in an essentially deducible way. We know the Bible condemns pedophilia without a verse that says "Thou shalt not molest children."​
Hi Dizerner

Well, if there is a doctrine that is required to be written out repeatedly, in the clearest way possible, unequivocally, is the doctrine of how men can be forgiven and transformed (renewed, regenerated, sanctified) by God. The doctrine of salvation.
Is there any other doctrine that you can find more important to men that this?

Please think: What is the reason why there are no numerous and heated debates in this Forum on whether we should help the hungry or the sick?
Because that is crystal clear from Scriptures, from reason, and from the voice of the Holy Spirit talking through our hearts, and the hearts of all our ancestors, across generations, nations and religions. We don't hear Sikhs, Muslims, Jews and Christians expressing disagreement on that. Do we?

Well, if the deity of Jesus Christ were essential for men's salvation, that should be written out repeatedly and explicitly.
Furthermore, and more importantly, if assenting to the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ were essential for men's salvation, that should be written out repeatedly and explicitly. We would read it almost in each messianic prophecy, in each parable of Jesus, in each story or episode of Jesus addressing a man in need.

How would we explain that Jesus was sent to the world to save men, spent 3 years preaching about many topics, and never bothered to explain, unequivocally, that believing in his deity was essential for man to be forgiven and born into a new life (saved)?
 
He was indeed called the Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6, and "God is with us" in Isaiah 7:14. We see, in fact, the often refrain that salvation can only come from God himself, and he will not share this glory with another.

I looked, but there was no one to help, And I wondered That there was no one to uphold; Therefore My own arm brought salvation for Me; And My own fury, it sustained Me. (Isa. 63:5 NKJ)

Notice that this passage echoes the Suffering Messiah, in Isaiah 53, who is directly called "The arm of the Lord."

Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant (Isa. 53:1-2 NKJ)
Dear @Dizerner and @civic

No Jew reading Isaiah never thought that God would become human to rescue Israel. Never taught at any synagogue. Not in the past, not in the present. So, if Isaiah wanted Jews to understand that, he failed 100%.

In regards to the name Immanuel

  1. Hebrew babies were given dozens of names refering to God: what God had done or expected to do. That does not mean that their parents believed that their baby was God. Take Joshua, for example "God is salvation". Joshua was expected to be an instrument of God to save, but not God Himself! This is only an example. There are many, many more. Just take those who end with "-El" or start with "Ja-, Jeh- Jo-. "
  2. Could you quote a verse in which Jesus was called Immanuel by his followers, enemies, evangelists, etc? Or even better, a verse in which Jesus is called Immanuel to support the notion that He needed to be God in order to save mankind? If what you say is true, disciples could have resorted to that argument. Why none of them never did it?
  3. The text in question was not written to predict the life of Jesus, as the prophecy says that while in still in his infancy, Israel would be invaded by Assyria, a thing that did not happen during the life of Jesus. "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin [or girl] shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. 17 The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.”
 
Notice that this passage echoes the Suffering Messiah, in Isaiah 53, who is directly called "The arm of the Lord."
Exactly. What goes to my point. Jesus was the arm of God, not God. The arm means the instrument, the tool, the means.
The arm of a King to execute something was his general, or minister, or judge working for him. That was his arm.

So, to exert his salvific mission, the Messiah needed to be the "arm" of YHWH, not YHWH.
 
And of course we have the New Testament telling us the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father was revealed to us,
The only begotten God? Where is that passage?
God cannot be begotten. Do you agree with me?
If God could be begotten, He could not be eternal. He would have a Cause, an Origin before Him.

Still, to focus on the discussion of your proposal, I don't see how the deity of Jesus was essential for Jesus to do what He did for us.
 
Exactly. What goes to my point. Jesus was the arm of God, not God. The arm means the instrument, the tool, the means.
The arm of a King to execute something was his general, or minister, or judge working for him. That was his arm.

So, to exert his salvific mission, the Messiah needed to be the "arm" of YHWH, not YHWH.
And the Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah in that passage. So according to your previous post it must not be true since the Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah just like they reject the Isaiah passages which declare He is also God.
 
The only begotten God? Where is that passage?
God cannot be begotten. Do you agree with me?
If God could be begotten, He could not be eternal. He would have a Cause, an Origin before Him.

Still, to focus on the discussion of your proposal, I don't see how the deity of Jesus was essential for Jesus to do what He did for us.
only begotten means unique, one of a kind- monogenes.
 
only begotten means unique, one of a kind- monogenes.

Yes, this is a superior translation, I quoted a different text from memory by mistake. It is more likely and more fitting, although the first is possible.

The word "Son" is replaced by "God" in some very early texts in John 1:18.
The two early papyri (𝔓66 and 𝔓75), the earliest uncials (א B C*), and some early versions (Coptic and Syriac) support the word θεος, and many church fathers (Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Serapion, Basil, Didymus, Gregory-Nyssa, Epiphanius, Valentiniansaccording to Irenaeus, Clement) knew of this reading.​
...​
After the discovery of the papyri, English translators started to adopt the reading “God.” However, the entire phrase, μονογενης θεος, is very difficult to render, so translators have not known whether to treat μονογενης as an adjective alone or as an adjective functioning as a substantive. Should this be rendered, “an only begotten God” or “an only one, God” or “unique God”? Since the term μονογενης more likely speaks of “uniqueness” than “only one born,” it probably functions as a substantive indicating Jesus’ unique identity as being both God and near to God, as a Son in the bosom of his Father​
Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), 255.
 
As an interesting aside for those who want to research more:

Theologian Wayne Grudem [who is also one of the members of the ESV translation oversight committee] has changed his mind on monogenes. He originally rejected the traditional understanding and translation of monogenes for the consensus view of the last 100 years or so which teaches it means something like "one and only" or "unique". But recently, he changed his mind based on the linguistic evidence provided by Lee Irons. He now holds to the traditional and historic understanding of monogenes as meaning "only begotten." In fact, he has published his second edition of his popular book "Introduction to Systematic Theology" and he writes about his change of mind and why. Sam Shamoun has posted an excerpt of Grudem on his blog where he quotes a long passage of Grudem's systematic theology where he defends his change of mind.
 
Yes, this is a superior translation, I quoted a different text from memory by mistake. It is more likely and more fitting, although the first is possible.

The word "Son" is replaced by "God" in some very early texts in John 1:18.
The two early papyri (𝔓66 and 𝔓75), the earliest uncials (א B C*), and some early versions (Coptic and Syriac) support the word θεος, and many church fathers (Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Serapion, Basil, Didymus, Gregory-Nyssa, Epiphanius, Valentiniansaccording to Irenaeus, Clement) knew of this reading.​
...​
After the discovery of the papyri, English translators started to adopt the reading “God.” However, the entire phrase, μονογενης θεος, is very difficult to render, so translators have not known whether to treat μονογενης as an adjective alone or as an adjective functioning as a substantive. Should this be rendered, “an only begotten God” or “an only one, God” or “unique God”? Since the term μονογενης more likely speaks of “uniqueness” than “only one born,” it probably functions as a substantive indicating Jesus’ unique identity as being both God and near to God, as a Son in the bosom of his Father​
Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), 255.
NASB "the only begotten God"
NKJV "the only begotten Son"
NRSV "It is God's only Son"
TEV "The only Son"
NJB "It is the only Son"
See note on monogenēs at Joh_1:14. Jesus is fully God and man. See full notes at Joh_1:1.
There is a Greek manuscript variation here. Theos/God is in the early Greek manuscripts P66, P75, B, and C, while "Son" is substituted for "God" only in MSS A and C3.

The UBS4 gives "God" a "B" rating (almost certain). The term "Son" possibly comes from scribes remembering "only begotten Son" in Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18 and in 1Jn_4:9 (cf. Bruce M. Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament p. 198).

This is a strong affirmation of the full and complete deity of Jesus! It is possible that this verse has three titles for Jesus: (1) only begotten, (2) God, and (3) who is in the bosom of the Father.

There is an interesting discussion of the possibility of a purposeful alteration of this text by orthodox scribes in Bart D. Ehrmans' The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 78-82.

J.
 
Back
Top Bottom