5 Non-Negotiables from the Church Fathers on the Incarnation

That may be the meaning of "only".
But what is the meaning of "begotten"?
For example in : "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You" (Hebrews 1:5)?

MONOGENÊS

BAGD: "In the Johannine lit[erature] m[onogenês] is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here...But some (e.g., WBauer, Hdb.) prefer to regard m[onogenês] as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One." (Bauer, it will be remembered, believed the Gospel of John was a gnostic text, and hence saw a theology behind John's writing compatible with the creation of the Logos as a semi-divine intermediary between the Monas and the creation with which He could not directly interact).

Louw & Nida: "Pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - 'unique, only.'"

Moulton & Milligan: "Literally 'one of a kind,' 'only,' 'unique' (unicus), not 'only-begotten....'"

Grimm/Thayer: "Single of its kind, only, [A.V. only-begotten]." (Note that Thayer's insertion merely cites the KJV translation, which owes considerable debt to the Vulgate of Jerome, who translated monogenês "unigenitus").

NIDNTT: "The only begotten, or only....RSV and NEB render monogenês as 'only.' This meaning is supported by R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, I, 1966, 13 f., and D. Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” JBL 72, 1953, 213-19. Lit. it means “of a single kind,” and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of “only begotten” goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made."

Newman: "Unique, only."

LSJ: "Only, single" (references John 1:14, the only NT verse cited).

TDNT: defines monogenês as "only begotten," but distinguishes between nouns ending in -genes and adverbs ending in -genês. The former denote the source of the derivation, the latter the nature of the derivation. Thus, the author (Buchsel) concludes that monogenês means "of sole descent." But Pendrick argues strongly against this view:





NT:3439

monogenes (‎monogenh/$‎, NT:3439) is used five times, all in the writings of the apostle John, of Christ as the Son of God; it is translated "only begotten" in Heb 11:17 of the relationship of Isaac to Abraham.


With reference to Christ, the phrase "the only begotten from the Father," John 1:14, RV (see also the marg.), indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him. In the original the definite article is omitted both before "only begotten" and before "Father," and its absence in each case serves to lay stress upon the characteristics referred to in the terms used. The apostle's object is to demonstrate what sort of glory it was that he and his fellow apostles had seen. That he is not merely making a comparison with earthly relationships is indicated by para, "from." The glory was that of a unique relationship and the word "begotten" does not imply a beginning of His Sonship. It suggests relationship indeed, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man.


We can only rightly understand the term "the only begotten" when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. "The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not 'after' the Father" (Moule). The expression also suggests the thought of the deepest affection, as in the case of the OT word yachid, variously rendered, "only one," Gen 22:2,12; "only son," Jer 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zech 12:10; "only beloved," Prov 4:3, and "darling," Ps 22:20; 35:17.


In John 1:18 the clause "the only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father," expresses both His eternal union with the Father in the Godhead and the ineffable intimacy and love between them, the Son sharing all the Father's counsels and enjoying all His affections. Another reading is monogenes Theos, "God only-begotten." In John 3:16 the statement, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son," must not be taken to mean that Christ became the only begotten son by incarnation. The value and the greatness of the gift lay in the Sonship of Him who was given. His Sonship was not the effect of His being given. In John 3:18 the phrase "the name of the only begotten son of God" lays stress upon the full revelation of God's character and will, His love and grace, as conveyed in the name of One who, being in a unique relationship to Him, was provided by Him as the object of faith. In 1 John 4:9 the statement "God hath sent His only begotten son into the world" does not mean that God sent out into the world one who at His birth in Bethlehem had become His Son. Cf. the parallel statement, "God sent forth the Spirit of His Son," Gal 4:6, RV, which could not mean that God sent forth One who became His Spirit when He sent Him.

(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
 
In my understanding, never literally
The terms “Father”, “Son” and “begotten” are metaphors.
Christians, though, have had different viees on this through history. What is yours?
As usual, you respond with a question, without answering mine- but you might be surprised at how many questions Jesus actually answered. What you see as "metaphors," I understand as literal.

It’s quite remarkable that you would consider Jesus a "metaphor," don’t you think? It seems like you can make the Bible say anything to fit your dogma.

γεννάω
gennáō; contracted gennṓ, fut. gennḗsō, from génos (G1085), generation, kind, offspring. To beget as spoken of men; to bear as spoken of women; pass., to be begotten or be born.

(I) In the act. sense:
(A) Spoken of men, to beget (Mat_1:2-16; Act_7:8, Act_7:29; Sept.: Gen_5:3 ff.). Metaphorically, to generate, to occasion, e.g., strifes (2Ti_2:23).

(B) Spoken in the Jewish manner of the relation between a teacher and his disciples, to beget in a spiritual sense, to be the spiritual father of someone, that is, the instrument of his conversion to a new spiritual life (1Co_4:15; Phm_1:10).

(C) Spoken of God begetting in a spiritual sense which consists in regenerating, sanctifying, quickening anew, and ennobling the powers of the natural man by imparting to him a new life and a new spirit in Christ (1Jn_5:1).

Hence, Christians are said to be born of God and to be the sons of God (Rom_8:14; Gal_3:26; Gal_4:6). Spoken of the relationship between God and the Messiah, called His Son. The designation of this relationship by words with a temporal notion has troubled theologians, who have proffered various explanations.

Origen understood this as referring to the Son's relationship within the Trinity and was the first to propose the concept of eternal generation.

The Son is said to be eternally begotten by the Father. Others have viewed the language more figuratively and connected it with Christ's role as Messiah. Upon Christ's exaltation to the Father's right hand, God is said to have appointed, declared or officially installed Christ as a king (Act_13:33; Rom_1:4; Heb_1:5; Heb_5:5; Sept.: Psa_2:6-8 [cf. huiós {G5207}, son]).

(D) Spoken of women, to bear, bring forth (Luk_1:13, Luk_1:57; Luk_23:29; Jhn_16:21; figuratively Gal_4:24; Sept.: Gen_46:15; Exo_6:20; Ezr_10:44).

(II) In the pass. sense gennáomai, contracted gennṓmai.

(A) To be begotten (Mat_1:20, "that which is conceived in her" or begotten, i.e., in her womb, the fetus; Heb_11:12).

(B) To be born as used generally (Mat_2:1, Mat_2:4; Mat_19:12; Mat_26:24; Mrk_14:21; Jhn_3:4, blind; Jhn_9:2, Jhn_9:19-20, Jhn_9:32; Jhn_16:21, "into the world"; Act_7:20; Act_22:28, I have been born a Roman; Rom_9:11; Heb_11:23; Gal_4:23, Gal_4:29, "after the flesh," in the course of nature). With eis (G1510), unto, denoting finality, destination (Jhn_18:37; 2Pe_2:12). In Mat_1:16, "of whom [fem. gen.]" meaning of the mother. See Luk_1:35. In Jhn_3:6, with ek (G1537), "out of the flesh" (a.t.), indicating the source. See also Jhn_8:41. With en (G1722), in, and the dat. of place (Act_22:3). With the dat. of state or condition (Jhn_9:34, in the state of sinfulness or sins). In Act_2:8, "wherein we were born," meaning the dialect, the native tongue. Metaphorically, ek (G1537), out of God or of the Spirit, only in the writings of John, meaning to be born of God or of the Spirit, in a spiritual sense, to have received from God a new spiritual life. See also Jhn_1:13; Jhn_3:5-6, Jhn_3:8; 1Jn_2:29; 1Jn_3:9; 1Jn_4:7; 1Jn_5:1, 1Jn_5:4, 1Jn_5:18, and to be "born again" or from above which is equivalent to be born of God (Jhn_3:3, Jhn_3:7); also ánōthen (G509), from above.

Deriv.: anagennáō (G313), to give new birth; génnēma (G1081), offspring; génnēsis (G1083), birth; gennētós (G1084), born.

Syn.: apokuéō (G616), to give birth to, bring forth. Used in a spiritual sense: tíktō (G5088), to bring forth, give birth to a child, also used metaphorically in regard to sin in Jas_1:15.

Ant.: thanatóō (G2289), to put to death; anairéō (G337), to take or lift up or away, put to death; apágō (G520), to put to death; apokteínō (G615), to kill; thúō (G2380), to sacrifice; phoneúō (G5407), to kill; spházō (G4969), to slaughter.
Word study.

In this verse.


Correct @Pancho Frijoles?
 
thats not the Greek word monogenes. monogenes means the following: 3439 monogenḗs – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).

Properly, we should say it's derivation is disputed. See above video.
 
In my understanding, never literally
The terms “Father”, “Son” and “begotten” are metaphors.
Christians, though, have had different viees on this through history. What is yours?

Classically, we say the Son has been begotten three times.

1. Eternally outside of time in the bosom of the Father.
2. At his incarnation in his earthly birth as a baby.
3. At his Resurrection as the firstborn to rise again.
 
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.

No, you are mistaken on this point. Scripture does not call any other creature "the arm of the Lord," it is uniquely personal to God and only used in Isaiah. God's own arm is a part of him, and not a part of something else, it represents the attribute of his strength. Here we see Isaiah's definition:

Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD! Awake as in the ancient days, In the generations of old. Are You not the arm that cut Rahab apart, And wounded the serpent? (Isa. 51:9 NKJ)

Notice Isaiah directly and distinctly says, "Are you not the arm?", showing that he is using it as a metonymy. This does not allow the arm to be attributed to anything else. Moses confirms this meaning in Numbers 11:23.

I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another (Isa. 42:8 NKJ)
 
The only begotten God? Where is that passage?

John 1:18, hopefully you can notice the textual information we included here.

God cannot be begotten. Do you agree with me?

No, I don't agree. God can split himself into parts if he wants, he has this ability. Thus he can beget persons of himself outside of time, without relation to it. The Spirit and the Son are emanations from the Father, and share his divine essence.

If God could be begotten, He could not be eternal. He would have a Cause, an Origin before Him.

No, that's just a logical error. If God causes himself in some sense, that is not a prior origin to 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.

It is because evil is SO evil that it necessitates an infinite price. And the reason evil is this evil, is because God's worth is infinite, and thus attributing little worth to God is insulting and violating his honor infinitely. So to bridge that gap requires the divine nature.

To help picture just how evil an action can potentially be, please try to imagine the worst possible thing a person could do. There are some actions that are so deeply heinous to us, that any rational person would be tempted to say, "Nothing could forgive that."

Now, this helps us understand the possibility of what evil really is, and that we all constantly minimize, rationalize, excuse, obfuscate, distract from, and flat out deny our sin, because no person automatically gives God the proper value he deserves.
 
Well, if there is a doctrine that is required to be written out repeatedly, in the clearest way possible, unequivocally

I understand the point you are making, but truth only comes to us by the Holy Spirit, not by reading words. People can read the Bible all their life and never understand what it means. And we must say, that by definition mercy is not an obligation, however God deems to communicate with us, we must simply thank him for it and not demand he do it differently.

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, there is some disagreement on that, even if it is a minority, but we don't want to make an argument from popularity or the majority here. If everyone agrees something evil is okay, that does not somehow make it okay, because everyone agrees on it. I agree Scripture teaches that, but it also teaches the motive is more important than the action itself.

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)?

I don't believe it is necessary to believe in Christ's deity to be saved, but I do believe it is necessary to believe Christ was sent to atone for sins to be saved. However, we cannot set our own arbitrary standard of how clear we think something needs to be before we believe it. The pedophile and can say, "If molesting children was so terrible, why didn't Jesus specifically say in clear terms 'thou shalt not molest children' one single time.'"

This is an invalid form of argumentation. Saying something at all, is saying it enough, and it is the Spirit that tells us what the Word means.

When we read "Love your neighbor," the Spirit tells us that means not to molest them.

When we read "the Word was God," the Spirit tells us Jesus is Divine.
 
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%.

You misunderstand God's intention here. The point of these passages, and Scripture clearly tells us they take divine revelation to understand, is to confirm the Messiah when he appears, and so that we can look back and see that confirmation pointing directly to Jesus.

There is a reason that when this passage is read to modern day Jews, and they are asked if it is in the Old Testament or the New Testament, the majority of them say, "Well, that sounds like Jesus—it must be the New Testament." And according to you, that's "failure."

You are mistaken in your reasoning and God's goals here. Isaiah 53 is testifying all over the world today that Jesus is God, and to you personally right now—and you dare to call that "failure."

To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven (1 Pet. 1:12 NKJ)

30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:30-31 NKJ)


And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. (Lk. 24:45 NKJ)

 
  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.

Granted. I understand and agree with this, but it is not an everyday case here, it is being used in a unique and special way.

  1. Could you quote a verse in which Jesus was called Immanuel by his followers, enemies, evangelists, etc?
Jesus' name is both affirmed as Immanuel here and linked and identified with his unique ability to "save his people from his sins."

21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us." (Matt. 1:21-23 NKJ)


Notice that only God can call all humankind "his people." We may say colloquially "Moses' people" or "David's people" to mean their followers, but no one in all Scripture can say of all humankind "his people" in a possessive sense.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. (Jn. 1:10-11 NKJ)


  1. 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.

I understand there is a dual prophecy here.

If you reject the New Testament as a source of inspiration, you will not accept that it calls this a prophecy of Christ.
 
Nicely done @Dizerner! Keep in mind this is not literal according to @Pancho Frijoles.

J.
Of course it is not literal: “to beget” in this context is not literal for @Dizerner, for you, or for me. Not literal for anyone in this forum.
Didn’t you read the explanation you posted, and the meaning you highlighted in bold? Yes, the item (B) on your list in post 28?
I kindly urge you to be a careful reader: a careful reader of your own posts and those of others.

In conclusion, “Father”, “Son”, “children”, and “beget” are all metaphors, that stress aspects of the relationship between God and Jesus, and between God and men.

This relation is always asymmetrical. He who begets is the origin of he who is begotten. Otherwise the Scripture would have used a different metaphor. The Biblle would have called Christ “The Brother of God”, or the Christ would have been a woman called “The Wife of God”.
In contrast, “Son of God” stresses that asymmetrical relationship in which the Origin, the Source, the Authority is God… a concept which is reinforced by Jesus Himself over and over and over in the gospels, where Jesus declares to have no authority of himself, but that he only speaks and does what His Father (His God) asks Him to do.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is not literal: “to beget” in this context is not literal for @Dizerner, for you, or for me.

I do try to avoid the use of the word "literal," it is not well understood by people who use it. We need to be very careful around it. There are presuppositions to the word that most people have never really thought deeply about. Since language is at its base a symbolic correlation of meaning, no word can be a strict one to one correspondence with its referent.

The point here would be we do believe it has a real meaning that is applicable.
 
Back
Top Bottom