Print Page | Add To Favorites | Close Window | Send To A Friend | Save This Page
FAQ # 228
QUESTION 228 : Is the term “only begotten son” (monogenes) scriptural
or does it mean what it says, that is, the Son is begotten?
As I have said
earlier in the book, they are other sons of God, but Christ being the
only *begotten means he is the only being that came out of God and is
God Himself. 'Came out', loosely used, refers to the reason and real essence
of the begottenness, his incarnation or humanity. That is, God the Father
becoming a man.
But first, lets
hear from one bible teacher, Ross Drysdale, who gives the reason for this
resurgence against the term “only begotten:”
“Neo-Trinitarians
in their desperation to sustain their untenable theory have begun toying
with the text of Scripture. Frantic to get rid of the idea of a "begotten"
Son (which they realize is fatal to the Trinity) they have "discovered"
something that had been overlooked for nearly 2,000 years. And what is
this marvelous discovery? "New light" on the Greek, they say,
shows that the word "begotten" is a mistranslation! The Greek
term "monogenes" should be rendered "unique," "one
of a kind" or just "only". No thought of generation is
implied, they maintain. Thus Dr. Boyd writes:
"First
as is widely recognized by contemporary biblical scholarship, the Johanine
Semitic phrase 'only begotten' (monogenes) is not a biological term. Rather,
the term specifies uniqueness. 'Mono' means 'one' and 'genos' means 'kind.'
Jesus is therefore, not God's only born Son (in contrast to all his nonbegotten
sons?); rather, he is, as the NIV rightly translates it, God's 'one and
only' Son."
In other words,
one of the reasons this term is being questioned, is because of it obviously
proves the Trinity as flawed; that is, the allege second pre-existent
person in the Godhead would be inferior by being begotton. Hence, there
wouldn't be a co-equal trinity of persons God, but plain tritheism. So
they opt to replace the word and refer to Christ as eternal, unbegotten,
only emanating from the father all the time the father was. This
would make the father and his son a twin. This error is recorded here,
“And,
to have the Father creating the Son and the Son not being an emanation
from the essence of the Father, Athanasius believed reduced the Son from
deity to a place among the created things like the angels. The issue then was creation of the Son as meaning begotten by the
Father, or an emanation from the Father, at the precise moment the
Father came into existence as God, as the meaning of begotten” (Cohen G. Reckart).
Of course, this
is flawed. But you can't tell that to the scholars; who through an attempt
to filter out the word 'begotten' from the bible, seek to maintain the
position of a second pre-existent person emanating from the father. Therefore,
they have concluded the following to the meaning of the term ‘only begotten’
(or the Greek monogenes):
“As
a matter of fact, some Greek lexicons renders monogenes simply
as ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ or ‘unique,’ without mentioning ‘only begotten.’
Especially, Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament
(1930) contends that it needs another n to be rendered into "only
begotten," that is, monogennetus (pp. 416f.). As early as
1883, B. F. Westcott insisted that the thought of monogenes ‘is
centered in the Personal existence of the Son, and not in the Generation
of the Son.’ This new rendering has an old history. However, it is certainly
undergoing a resurgence in our time, as we see it in RSV, NEB, and NIV
(‘one and only’). Though its primary argument is linguistic by nature,
its theological implication may not be denied because the real Sonship
of Jesus is under a serious attack” (J.S.Rhee).
Not only that,
they allege to have support this usage in ancient writing. The supposed
writing by an allege Clement help furnish the belief that monogenes can
only be translated as unique, as in only one:
The
writings of an early Church father, Clement of Rome, (95 A.D.) furnishes
an excellent example of this usage:
"Let us consider the marvelous sign which is seen
in the regions of the east, that is, the parts of Arabia. There is a bird,
which is name the Phoenix. This, being the only one of its kind liveth
for five hundred years" (1 Clement 25:3).
The
phrase "only one of its kind" is the translation of the same
Greek word monogenes” (Michael Bremmer).
Firstly, this record
of Clement seems like a forgery, for it seems more paganistic in nature;
far away from the Clement that was in the succession of Peter. Secondly,
the context is way off. One word can be used in different ways to mean
different things, yet it has its inherent meaning. Altogether, this attempt
by Mr. Michael Bremmer proves nothing.
Separate and apart
from trying to make a second pre-existent son in the Trinity, another
reason for this emphasis on omitting the term is because the Jehovah Witness
use it to say Jesus is only a created being; like an angel or great divine
being sent to die on the cross. Regardless of this reason and any other
reasons, it is not necessary to omit from scripture an undeniable doctrine.
Not only that, but this is being done with little notice by most, as quoted
below:
“Concerning
the reason why such a new rendering does not disturb the Church, James
M. Bulman has an excellent analysis:
The
popular acceptance of the translation of monogenes as ‘only’ instead
of ‘only begotten’ does not seem to have caused much concern theologically,
probably because the ancient axiom of the Generation of the Son has come
to have little meaning” (J.S.Rhee).
It could have also
gone unnoticed because of its linguistic mask. Dale Moody notes, "the
removal of the term 'only begotten' was prompted, not by theological interest,
but by the plain demands of linguistic study." However, it’s more
than linguistic, it’s really meant to strengthen what is left of the flawed
doctrine of the Trinity. Ross Drysdale adds:
“It
seems Neo-Trinitarians will stop at nothing, even altering the Word of
God, in their frenzied efforts to keep their leaky theological raft afloat.
Instead of bailing out however, they have just added a curse to their
sin of heresy, "for is any man shall take away from the words of
this book" we are informed, "God shall take away his part out
of the book of Life" (Rev. 22:19). Dangerous work this Trinitarianism.
The "New Translation" for monogenes is a Trinitarian fiction
and flies in the face of 2,000 years of scholarship. The ancient church
fathers always translated it as "begotten." They always understood
it as "begotten," and so wrote of it. These men lived 1,700
years closer to the original manuscripts. They not only knew the ancient
Greek, they spoke it as their mother tongue! The Council of Nicea was
conducted in Greek! Surely they would know their own language. They did.
And that is why they included the word "begotten" repeatedly
in all the ancient creeds. They never once substituted "unique"
or "one and only." Seventeen hundred years later some "johnny-come-latelys"
would teach them their own language! The Trinitarian Fathers tried to
avoid the idea of a "begotten" Son by postulating an "eternal"
begetting; they didn't dare try to change the meaning of the word. Indeed,
they couldn't, for they would have been "laughed out of court."
Everyone knew what monogenes meant.
Besides,
other things weigh in against the Neo-Trinitarian case. What can they
do with such texts as Matt. 1:20 where Joseph is informed "that which
is begotten in her is of the Holy Ghost" (margin). Are we to translate
this as "that which is 'uniqued' in her is of the Holy Ghost?"
Or how about Hebrews 1:5 which reads, "Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee." Are we to now render it: "Thou art my
Son, this day have I 'one and onlyed' thee?" Dr. Boyd unbelievably
explains it away by linking it to Solomon's Coronation Ceremony!
"The Old Testament passages the author is quoting speak of an ideal
king's relationship to the God of Israel and have nothing to do with the
biological birth of the king. Rather they simply speak of God's openly
declaring (probably during the coronation ceremony) his special relationship
to the king, and through the king to all of Israel" (Boyd, p. 112).
In other words, any interpretation will do, except the one which scripturally
relates the "begetting" to the child who was "begotten!"
He starts with the premise that the verse cannot means what it "says,"
so anything is possible after that. Such "reasoning in chains"
will never arrive at correct conclusions.
In Hebrews 1:5, as a matter of fact, the writer is bringing forth the
argument that Christ is better than the angels because he has a better
title, Son of God. And the reason he has this better title is grounded
in the fact that he was "begotten." For angels are also called
"sons of God (Job 2:10), but they are never said to be "begotten
Sons." Only to Christ belongs the privilege of having been "begotten"
directly to God; something that could never be said of angels. Therefore,
to remove the "begetting of the Son" from this passage is tantamount
to destroying the whole argument!
If the correct translation is God's "one and only son" that
means there can be no more sons of God at all! Adam will be surprised
to find out he was not a son of God (Luke 3:38). Angels will be surprised
to find out they were not either (Job 2:1). But most surprised of all
will be the multitude of Christians who have been told they too were sons
of God (1 John 3:1-2). For if Jesus is the "one and only" Son
of God, then there can be no room for others, whether they be created,
or adopted. And of course this flies in the face of Scripture which does
indeed call both angels and Christians "Sons of God."
But its not dismissed that easy. God does have other sons, created and
adopted, which would render it impossible for Jesus to be God's "one
and only" Son as Neo-Trinitarians would like to call him. Unless
Jesus is God's "only begotten Son" then we Christians cannot
be sons at all according to this Neo-Trinitarian linguistic Charade.”
With this blown away, the only alternative is to say
that 'monogenes' or ‘begotten’ means unique and thus Jesus is a unique
son or more commonly, because of his deity, a unique God. This is really
going back to Arianism, tritheism and even what some Jehovah witness and
apologists believe, that Jesus is a second separate God, a unique God.
As stated here by Dr. James White,
“Jesus Christ who, though clearly
not the Father Himself, is the one who ‘makes the Father known’ and who
is, indeed, the monogenes theos the ‘unique God’."
In other words,
John 3:16 should read, “God so loved the word that he sent his unique
God that whosoever believe in this unique God shall not Perish but have
everlasting life.” You see how absurd this is. Another scholar rightly
agrees and straighten it out, "We do not believe these variant readings
are correct...This verse of Scripture does not mean that God is revealed
by God, but that God is revealed in flesh through the humanity of the
Son" (David. B.).
Yes, humanity. That’s why the angel said “that holy thing which shall
be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). In other words,
the begottenness occurred on a day, in time, as prophesied in the psalms;
“Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Psalms 2:7).
Ross Drysdale had this to add:
“The
Bible says the begetting occurred on a particular day.
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this
day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he
shall be to me a Son? Hebrews 1:5.
Seeing
it occurred on a "day" and not in "eternity past,"
we must search the calendars of earth's history to locate this specific
time. This begetting, as we have seen, occurred at Nazareth to a virgin
named Mary. This event, according to the marginal date of the Bible, took
place in the year BC 4. If this dating system is reliable, and many scholars
believe it is, then the begetting of the Son of God occurred in the year
4 BC. No other begetting is described for Him in the Bible, so we must
conclude this is the time referred to in Heb. 1:5.
The Father and the Son relationship comes into existence at this point.
On the day the Son was begotten, God became Father. God has been called
Father before in the Bible, but never in relationship to a begotten Son.
He was the Father of Creation, and a Father to the nation of Israel. But
it is on this day in Nazareth 2,000 years ago that He became Father of
the Son of God. This is why we do not read of "Father and Son"
in the Old Testament (except in prophetic reference). At that time the
"day" had not yet come. After the birth of Christ, the references
to God as Father multiply dramatically.
The Son of God came into existence as a direct result of the Virgin Birth.
He did not exist as the Son of God before that time. Nothing is plainer
in Scripture than this. Numerous scholars, including Trinitarians, attest
to this fact. A reading of the passage makes this crystal clear:
‘And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God’ Luke 1:35.
The word "therefore" in this text is very important. It is because
of this begetting by the Holy Ghost that the child would be called the
"Son of God." There is no other reason offered in Scripture
for Christ being called the Son of God other than the fact that God was
His Father in this birth! Naturally when Dr. Boyd cites Luke 1:35 on page
111, he uses a translation which omits the word "therefore."
It is very damaging to their theory of the angel "simply telling
Mary she was going to conceive a supremely holy child" who would
also be known by a "moral and theological title" common in the
"ancient Semitic world," namely, Son of God! They ground none
of it in the Virgin Birth! The Bible grounds all of it in that event.
The Son of God is a reference to our Lord's human nature exclusively.”
That’s the
reason “begotten” means begotten when it is written in the in the bible
(KJV) and not the later miss-translation of “unique” or “one and only”.
This is attest to by the following references:
“George Ricker
Berry, who was a professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages at Colgate-Rochester
Divinity School, and who held a PhD from the University of Chicago, consistently
rendered monogenes as "begotten" in his monumental work, Interlinear
Greek-English New Testament. Even Dr. Vines, who loves to weave Trinitarian
interpretations around everything he writes, was forced on page 822 of
his Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, to list under "only
begotten" the Greek word "monogenes" and to give five references
in John's writings where it was used. If he could have honestly gotten
out of it, he would have!”
So it is really hard to read anything else into “monogenes” as it relates
to the personage of Jesus Christ; except one twists the scripture and
linguistic, purposely. In fact, one person noted,
“Though they
contend that "begottenness" is "remotely related"
and therefore "only begotten Son" is a "mistranslation
or over-translation," the concepts of "begottenness" and
"Sonship" cannot be separated if the Son is by nature, not by
adoption. The former is implicit in the latter. Therefore, the confession
of Jesus as "the Son" is central in the Gospel. And, as far
as "the Son" is confessed in the natural sense, the concept
of "begottenness" is still alive whether it is additionally
translated or not. Therefore, it could be wise to retain the traditional
rendering while it is disputed, because translation of the Scripture requires
not only linguistic but also contextual consideration of the text as well
as the contemporary theological situation” (J. S. Rhee).
Therefore, the
doctrine of the Trinity falls apart in application, because what they
are in effect posting is either subordinationism or tri-theism. However,
in defense to that, Dr. Shedd replied:
"But
if the Father is unbegotten, does it not follow that he alone is the absolute
Being? and is not this Arianism? Not so. For one and the same numerical
essence subsists whole and undivided in him who is generated, as
well as in him who generates; in him who is spirated, as
well as in those two who spirate. There can therefore be no inequality
of essence caused by these acts of generation and spiration."
A trinitarian had
to confess:
“Such
language seems, to many, to be foreign to the "simple" message
of the Gospel.”
Not only is the
language foreign to Christianity but also the doctrine, and extremely
ridiculous to that. Generate and generated itself clearly erode the notion
that there is "no inequality of...” anything. Why can’t we see that
the Trinitarian doctrine is not applicable to biblical doctrine and when
exposed, eloquence, philosophies and “big words” are used to try and mask
the errors. This is far from “the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus.”
One person summed
up this entire nonsense,
"Jesus
cannot be analyzed and calculated. But whoever speaks of him in human
words is entering into the realm of
"rational" speech. There is no unique language for the
realm of the incalculable and the "irrational." Thus, where
we express "eschatological history," the origin and the goal,
God's reality in the man Jesus, our language collapses; it becomes paradoxical.
We could also say that our language then expresses awe. It says those
things which leave men "speechless." Its terms are not then
a means for grasping but rather for making known that we have been
grasped."
"Simply stated,
God is absolutely and indivisibly one. There are no essential distinctions
or divisions in His eternal nature. All the names and titles of the Deity,
such as Elohim, Yahweh [Yahovah], Adonai, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit
refer to one and the same being. Any plurality associated with God is
only a plurality of attributes, titles, roles, manifestations, modes of
activity, or relationships to man" (David. B, a paper to Harvard
Divinity School in 1985).
"The Logos (Word) of John 1 is not equivalent to the title Son in
[Apostolic] theology as it is in Trinitarianism. Son is limited to the
Incarnation, but Logos is not. The Logos is God's self expression, ‘God's
means of self disclosure’, or ‘God uttering Himself’. Before the Incarnation,
the Logos was the unexpressed thought or plan in the mind of God, which
had a reality no human thought can have because of God's perfect foreknowledge,
and in the case of the Incarnation, God's predestination. In the beginning,
the Logos was with God, not as a separate person but as God Himself -
pertaining to and belonging to God much like a man and his word. In the
fulness of time God put flesh on the Logos; He expressed Himself in flesh"
(Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 57).
Answer Notes:
1. * denotes, Begotten inherently refers to flesh (as in John 3:16), but
can be use metaphorically for other things that resemble a fleshly begotteness;
example, 1 John 5:18, “Whosoever is born of God sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself” (1 John
5:18). Inherently it means a fleshly begotteness and often expressed that
way in context for us to clearly see that it means that. However, like
any inherent thing, it can be use in analogies to resemble the inherent
thing; this use of analogy is also clearly seen (as in 1 John 5:18).
"Although some religious authors have depicted Christ
as an 'eternal Son'. Actually the concept of an eternal Son would not
allow the possibility of a begotten Son; for the two would be a contradiction
in terms. "Eternal in the sense that he exists as long as the father,
same age so to speak. That couldn’t be the case if he is begotten. Then
that makes him subordinate if this theorem of a trinity of persons was
true" (Robert Graves).
Go to top of Page | Get the Book | Buy it here or here or here or here | More FAQ's