PART 2 “But then, in 2017, substantial new evidence came to light. Charles Lee Irons published a significant essay, ‘A Lexical Defense of the Johannine “Only Begotten.”’ Irons reported that he had found many hundreds of examples of monogenes in the early church fathers who wrote in Greek. He then pointed to B. F. Westcott’s 1886 commentary on the epistles of John as the earliest support for the meaning ‘unique’ rather than ‘only begotten.’ Westcott was followed by other publications, and eventually the meaning ‘only’ appeared in these five verses in the RSV in 1946, and other Bible translations followed. “In response to the ‘only, unique’ view, Irons argues that the difference between single and double n in genos and gennao has no significance since both words ultimately share the same root and the doubling of n is a common spelling variation in Greek. “Significantly, Irons found ‘at least 145’ words in ancient Greek that are built upon the -genes stem. By far the largest number of them have the idea of being born or produced. These include thalassogenes (“sea-born”), neogenes (“newborn”), patrogenes (“begotten of the father”), proteregenes (“born sooner, older”), and purigenes (“born in or from fire”). He says, ‘Fewer than 12 of the 145 -genes words involve meanings related to “kind”.’ “Irons does not claim that monogenes always means ‘only begotten,’ because there are numerous clear examples where it does mean simply ‘only, unique, one-of-a-kind.’ But Irons is claiming that many hundreds of examples prove that it certainly can mean ‘only begotten,’ and that ‘monogenes is used more basically and frequently in reference to an only child begotten by a parent, with the implication of not having siblings.’ “He adds another argument: If the word meant ‘only,’ then we would expect to find it used to modify many other nouns that do not involve the concept of begotten or being an offspring, for example, ‘only wife,’ ‘only brother,’ only friend,’ ‘only slave’…‘only garment,’ ‘only house,’ ‘only sword,’ and so on. But such collocations are completely absent in extrabiblical Greek. This suggests that the literal meaning…is the straightforward biological meaning: ‘only begotten,’ that is, ‘without siblings.’ “Irons then explains that ‘this basic meaning gets gradually extended in ever new non-literal, metaphorical directions,’ including the meaning ‘only legitimate child or heir’ (applied to Isaac in Heb. 11:17) and eventually the meaning ‘only one of its kind.’ “Finally, Irons considers the meaning of monogenes in the New Testament. John 1:14 is especially significant: ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth’ (John 1:14). The problem is that the word son (Gk. huios) is not in the Greek text, which just says doxan hos monogenes para patros. If we translate monogenes as ‘only,’ we end up with the nonsense phrase, ‘glory as of the only from the Father.’ When Bible translations such as the ESV and NIV have to insert the word ‘Son,’ Irons says, they show that monogenes cannot mean simply ‘only’ in this case but that the notion of being a child or being begotten was part of the meaning signified by the word monogenes itself. By contrast, the translation ‘glory of the only begotten of the Father’ is a coherent idea. “In addition, the view that Christ was eternally begotten by the Father is explicitly affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which has been widely used by Christians since it was first written in AD 325 (and revised in AD 381). It begins this way: I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten [Gr. monogenes] Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made. “Clearly, the authors of the Nicene Creed understood monogenes to mean ‘only begotten,’ not just ‘only, unique,’ because they use the verb gennao (‘beget’) twice to explain what monogenes means: (1) it is an eternal begetting that never had a beginning because Christ was ‘begotten (gennethenta) of the Father before all ages,’ and (2) it does not mean that the Son was created, for the Son was ‘begotten, not made (gennethenta, ou poiethenta). “The evidence and arguments produced by Irons have convinced me that monogenes when used of God the Son in the New Testament means ‘only begotten.’ As a result, I have removed appendix 6 (where I argued against ‘only begotten’) from this edition of Systematic Theology. In addition, I am now willing to affirm the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (also called the eternal begetting of the Son).
Ben, I love your exegesis of this text! Deeply biblical and in context AND your use of Hebrews 11:17 and Genesis 22:2 is exactly how scripture interprets scripture. I have a question. Isn’t Monogenes also better translated “one and only” since begotten is a verb and Monogenes is an adjective? Begotten is the past tense of beget which means generated or procreated. Monogenes being an adjective is not an action word like begotten. “One and only” or “one and only unique offspring,” are descriptive phrases, NOT verbal action phrases like begotten. Does that sound about right?
PART 3 3. The Meaning of the Eternal Generation of the Son “As indicated in the previous section, I now think the following verses (and John 3:18; 1 John 4:9) should be translated to reflect the meaning ‘only begotten’ for the Greek word monogenes: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. (John 1:18) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16) “But what can it mean that Christ is God’s ‘only begotten Son’? Because so many other passages affirm the full deity of Christ (see section B.2 above, and chapter 26), and because God has existed eternally, we must stay away from any idea that the Son was somehow created by the Father in the distant past. In this respect the analogy with human begetting breaks down and does not apply. “On the other hand, the examples in the previous section show that the compound words using -genes tend to carry an implication of some kind of origin. And there are other verses that speak of the Son as existing in some sense ‘from’ the Father: Christ is ‘the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (Heb. 1:3). The word radiance (Gr. apaugasma) gives the sense of bright light shining from a source of light, and exact imprint (Gr. charakter) is a word elsewhere used for an exact duplicate of an original pattern (such as a coin stamped out at a mint). Both words indicate that the Son, while not created, is in some sense ‘from’ the Father. Similarly, the Son is said to be the ‘Word’ of God (John 1:1-2), and a word is something that is spoken outward from a person. And John quotes Jesus as saying, ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself’ (John 5:26). “Bruce Ware, I think rightly, adds the following argument for eternal generation: ‘Since the Father is really Father, as opposed to being Father nominally (i.e., in name only), and since the Father is eternal Father, then it follows that he must really have a Son, who is genuinely from Him (otherwise He isn’t really Father), and that this Son from Him must likewise be eternally from Him (otherwise He isn’t eternally Father).’ “What, then, does the eternal generation of the Son mean? It means that the Son is in some sense ‘from’ the Father. But beyond that, it is easier to define what it does not mean than to clearly explain what it does mean. Eternal generation is not something that ever began, but it is eternal. It does not mean that the Son was created by the Father. And it does not mean that the Father possesses any of the attributes of God in a greater measure than the Son. “Speaking positively, we can say that the eternal generation of the Son implies that (1) the Son is of the same essence as the Father (for a father begets a son like himself), (2) the Son is a distinct person from the Father (for the Son is begotten and the Father is unbegotten), and (3) there is a specific order in the relationship between Father and Son (the biblical pattern is always from the Father through the Son, as in 1 Cor. 8:6). But all three of these points can be established from the clear testimony of many passages of Scripture without any need for a doctrine of eternal generation (as is evident, for example, from the fact that I affirmed all three of these points in the first edition of this book while denying eternal generation). Still, the idea of the eternal generation of the Son implies all three of these points at once, while otherwise they would have to be established by a combination of the teachings of several different verses. “Can we explain anything more about what happens in this eternal generation? What kind of generation is this? There have been at least two common explanations that do not clearly contradict any text of Scripture or any essential element in the doctrine of the Trinity: A. Eternal generation means that the Father eternally communicates to the Son the divine essence, so that the Son fully shares in every attribute of the Father. John 5:26 can be understood to support this idea: ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.’ This does not mean that the Father is greater than the Son in any attribute, for the Father’s communication of the divine essence is so complete that the Son is the ‘exact imprint’ (or exact duplicate) of the Father (Heb. 1:3). And because this generation is eternal, the Son was not created but eternally existed as ‘the only begotten Son.’ This has been the most common view through the history of the church. B. Eternal generation means that the Father is the source of the personal distinctions between Father and Son (and, by implication, the Holy Spirit), but he is not the source of their divine essence (or being). This was the view of John Calvin, who was concerned that the first option (saying that the Father communicates the divine essence to the Son) seems to imply that the Son and Spirit are lesser deities, that they somehow do not fully have all the attributes of the Father. “I find it difficult to decide between these two options, but option (a) seems to be a more natural conclusion from the meaning ‘only begotten’ (John 1:14, 18; 3:16), from the very names Father and Son, and from verses that speak of the Son as the Word of God (John 1:1-2), ‘the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature’ (Heb. 1:3), and the one whom the Father has granted to ‘have life in himself’ (John 5:26). “However, I am not convinced that God has revealed enough information in Scripture for us to affirm or deny either option (a) or (b) with confidence. The actual meaning of the eternal generation of the Son might in fact be option (c), an explanation that we do not now understand or even know about. What we do have is five verses that say that Christ is the ‘only begotten’ Son of the Father, and we have other verses that teach that God is eternal. Therefore, we can affirm with confidence the eternal generation of the Son. But we are dealing here with a topic of great mystery, and it seems wise to admit that much of this topic remains among the ‘secret things’ that ‘belong to the Lord our God’ (Deut. 29:29).”
The bible I read refers to a wide variety of sons of god, including Genesis 6 which were corrupt sons of god. Your "mono genes" claim seems to me to be arbitrary. Mono - for example - can be "alone" or "isolated". And "gene" can mean "descent" or "birth" or lineage. So even if John intended to describe Jesus as having arisen from some sort of "isolated lineage" that would lineage would not necessarily imply that he was not created. Everyone I know who is in a lineage was created by their parents.
Scripture teaches about the Only begotten Son of God clearly. Begotten Son of God isn't termed in the biological sense. Read the decree of God in Psalm 2:7 which is taught by the Apostles in Acts 13 :33-34 as raised / Resurrected / lifted up. Continue reading verse 35 which says, Thou shalt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Verse 37 Begotten Son of God is preached by the Apostles, which means the raised Christ. Verse 38. In the gospel of John 3:14 Jesus Christ spoke about the Only begotten Son of God through the old testament prophetic verse. Verse 3:15 & 16 John established the truth about the Only begotten Son of God, which scripture talks later Marvelous truth. Muslims / Yehowah Witnesses aren't given by God this Truth. Praise God Hallelujah
*Ben Grist* Bravo well done thank-you sir for taking the time to explain G3439. monogenés *One of a Kind* monogenés: only begotten Original Word: μονογενής, ές Part of Speech: Adjective Transliteration: monogenés Phonetic Spelling: (mon-og-en-ace') Definition: only begotten Usage: only, only-begotten; unique. 3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") - properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" - literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).
Let us replace your version of the meaning in the other verses in scripture where the word Μονογενής (Monogenes) is used Luk 9:38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is my, ONE OF A KIND (Monogenes) child. Luk 8:42 For he had ONE OF A KIND (Monogenes) daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him. Luk 7:12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the ONE OF A KIND (Monogenes) son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. In all these verses Μονογενής (Monogenes) can mean only one thing and that is ONLY BEGOTTEN and NOT, one of a kind. But when it comes to Jesus it suddenly has a different meaning. Isaac was Abrahams only begotten son. Ismael was not the son of Abrahams wife, God never accepts sin or its consequences, and would therefore not refer to Ismael as his son.
The raw meaning of "monogenēs" is indeed "one of a kind." Other meanings can be derived from it based on context; for example, if someone has no siblings, then they are indeed "one of a kind" in that they are the only one of their kind in regard to their relationship to their parents - they are their parents' only child. In Jesus' case, he is God's "one of a kind" son for a different reason: relative to God's other sons (e.g. David, Solomon, etc*), he was sinless and therefore was one of a kind among his brothers. * *1. David.* : *_Psalm 89:20-26._*_ I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him...He will call out to me, _*_‘YOU ARE MY FATHER,_*_ my God, the Rock my Savior.’_ * *2. Solomon* : *_2nd Samuel _**_7:13_**_-14._*_ He [Solomon] is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. _*_I WILL BE HIS FATHER AND HE WILL BE MY SON._*_ When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands._
@@SaintFort So now all of sudden the meanings of words can be "raw"? Shall I infer that other meanings are "rare" , "medium rare", and "well done"? Then you pick the meaning that fits your pre-determined theology? How about if the "raw meaning" is something more like "isolated lineage"? As to your so-called "one of a kind" son, I dispute that on grounds that my bible refers to a whole lotta "sons of god", including the Genesis 6 sons of god. AS to your "indeed one of kind" siblings, it seems to me that Jesus had a lotta siblings because the bible that I read refers to a lotta "sons of god". Apparently, even Mary had other kids and apparently Jesus had a brother. So, your claims seem to me to be pretty flimsy.
I’ve heard this argument before. The problem is it commits the either or fallacy and is thereby invalid. “Unique” or “one of a kind” are not the only alternatives to “only-begotten.” According to BDAG, monogenes can also be translated, “one and only” or simply “only” which is exactly what the modern translations do. I’m currently doing a deep dive into this whole matter. But I know one thing for certain which is that your argument for “only-begotten” fails.
@@thetrinitysolution9631 maybe you can do an unbiased "deep dive" on whether the bible teach a trinity. To this day the Jewish people would say NO. any encyclopedia will tell you NO it does not, it is assumed because there is clearly God the Father, the Son of God, and the Spirit of God. The Bible is very clear on the fact that ther is only one God that has no God, and that is God the Father, Daniel describes Him as the Ancient of days. Jesus states that He has a God His Father, that He is submissave to. Mat 27:46, John 20:17, 1 Cor3:23, 1Cor 11:3, 2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3, Eph 1:17, 1 Pet 1:3, Rev 3:12 There can be no doubt that Jesus is God, because He is the real Son of God, but He also bow to His Father, which is His God, where the Father Has NO God, and that is why the Father, as stated in 1 Tim 6 15,16 is the only Potentate, the One that dwells in Light that no man can approach, no man has seen, or has seen. 1 Cor 8:6 states the beliefs of Paul and the early church, and that is "that there is but one God, the Father" and He has a Son. I would sugest study the bible and not preconceived doctrines and use selected texts to prove such doctrines.
Bibles Psalm 2:7 David is also called the "begotten son" “I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
But David had a mortal mother and farther . Jesus had a mortal mother but an immortal farther . Big difrence . Don't just look at the word begotten . But what's behind it
Hi Alex, I agree that all humanity are seen of as God’s sons and daughters, but more in an adopted sense like in the start of Ephesians, but Jesus is God’s only actual son in that sense, he is the first born and the only one referred to as THE Son of God as apposed to other places when others are referred to sons, daughters and children of God
Yea the Greek fathers who spoke the Greek as their 1st language understood the word to mean only generated. They didn't think that the Word was physically generated. The analogy was more about how Mind generates Word. I'll stick with the the successors of the apostles who spoke Greek. If Jesus is the one of a kind God then he's not consubstantial with the Father You seem to be denying the inter trinitarian relations. Thats the only thing that distinguishes the persons of the Trinity.
PART 2
“But then, in 2017, substantial new evidence came to light. Charles Lee Irons published a significant essay, ‘A Lexical Defense of the Johannine “Only Begotten.”’ Irons reported that he had found many hundreds of examples of monogenes in the early church fathers who wrote in Greek. He then pointed to B. F. Westcott’s 1886 commentary on the epistles of John as the earliest support for the meaning ‘unique’ rather than ‘only begotten.’ Westcott was followed by other publications, and eventually the meaning ‘only’ appeared in these five verses in the RSV in 1946, and other Bible translations followed.
“In response to the ‘only, unique’ view, Irons argues that the difference between single and double n in genos and gennao has no significance since both words ultimately share the same root and the doubling of n is a common spelling variation in Greek.
“Significantly, Irons found ‘at least 145’ words in ancient Greek that are built upon the -genes stem. By far the largest number of them have the idea of being born or produced. These include thalassogenes (“sea-born”), neogenes (“newborn”), patrogenes (“begotten of the father”), proteregenes (“born sooner, older”), and purigenes (“born in or from fire”). He says, ‘Fewer than 12 of the 145 -genes words involve meanings related to “kind”.’
“Irons does not claim that monogenes always means ‘only begotten,’ because there are numerous clear examples where it does mean simply ‘only, unique, one-of-a-kind.’ But Irons is claiming that many hundreds of examples prove that it certainly can mean ‘only begotten,’ and that ‘monogenes is used more basically and frequently in reference to an only child begotten by a parent, with the implication of not having siblings.’
“He adds another argument:
If the word meant ‘only,’ then we would expect to find it used to modify many other nouns that do not involve the concept of begotten or being an offspring, for example, ‘only wife,’ ‘only brother,’ only friend,’ ‘only slave’…‘only garment,’ ‘only house,’ ‘only sword,’ and so on. But such collocations are completely absent in extrabiblical Greek. This suggests that the literal meaning…is the straightforward biological meaning: ‘only begotten,’ that is, ‘without siblings.’
“Irons then explains that ‘this basic meaning gets gradually extended in ever new non-literal, metaphorical directions,’ including the meaning ‘only legitimate child or heir’ (applied to Isaac in Heb. 11:17) and eventually the meaning ‘only one of its kind.’
“Finally, Irons considers the meaning of monogenes in the New Testament. John 1:14 is especially significant: ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth’ (John 1:14). The problem is that the word son (Gk. huios) is not in the Greek text, which just says doxan hos monogenes para patros. If we translate monogenes as ‘only,’ we end up with the nonsense phrase, ‘glory as of the only from the Father.’ When Bible translations such as the ESV and NIV have to insert the word ‘Son,’ Irons says, they show that monogenes cannot mean simply ‘only’ in this case but that the notion of being a child or being begotten was part of the meaning signified by the word monogenes itself. By contrast, the translation ‘glory of the only begotten of the Father’ is a coherent idea.
“In addition, the view that Christ was eternally begotten by the Father is explicitly affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which has been widely used by Christians since it was first written in AD 325 (and revised in AD 381). It begins this way:
I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten [Gr. monogenes] Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made.
“Clearly, the authors of the Nicene Creed understood monogenes to mean ‘only begotten,’ not just ‘only, unique,’ because they use the verb gennao (‘beget’) twice to explain what monogenes means: (1) it is an eternal begetting that never had a beginning because Christ was ‘begotten (gennethenta) of the Father before all ages,’ and (2) it does not mean that the Son was created, for the Son was ‘begotten, not made (gennethenta, ou poiethenta).
“The evidence and arguments produced by Irons have convinced me that monogenes when used of God the Son in the New Testament means ‘only begotten.’ As a result, I have removed appendix 6 (where I argued against ‘only begotten’) from this edition of Systematic Theology. In addition, I am now willing to affirm the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (also called the eternal begetting of the Son).
“Unique” in the sense of “special”, “favorite”, and “excellent”!
Ben, I love your exegesis of this text! Deeply biblical and in context AND your use of Hebrews 11:17 and Genesis 22:2 is exactly how scripture interprets scripture. I have a question. Isn’t Monogenes also better translated “one and only” since begotten is a verb and Monogenes is an adjective?
Begotten is the past tense of beget which means generated or procreated. Monogenes being an adjective is not an action word like begotten. “One and only” or “one and only unique offspring,” are descriptive phrases, NOT verbal action phrases like begotten. Does that sound about right?
PART 3
3. The Meaning of the Eternal Generation of the Son
“As indicated in the previous section, I now think the following verses (and John 3:18; 1 John 4:9) should be translated to reflect the meaning ‘only begotten’ for the Greek word monogenes:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. (John 1:18)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
“But what can it mean that Christ is God’s ‘only begotten Son’? Because so many other passages affirm the full deity of Christ (see section B.2 above, and chapter 26), and because God has existed eternally, we must stay away from any idea that the Son was somehow created by the Father in the distant past. In this respect the analogy with human begetting breaks down and does not apply.
“On the other hand, the examples in the previous section show that the compound words using -genes tend to carry an implication of some kind of origin. And there are other verses that speak of the Son as existing in some sense ‘from’ the Father: Christ is ‘the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (Heb. 1:3). The word radiance (Gr. apaugasma) gives the sense of bright light shining from a source of light, and exact imprint (Gr. charakter) is a word elsewhere used for an exact duplicate of an original pattern (such as a coin stamped out at a mint). Both words indicate that the Son, while not created, is in some sense ‘from’ the Father. Similarly, the Son is said to be the ‘Word’ of God (John 1:1-2), and a word is something that is spoken outward from a person. And John quotes Jesus as saying, ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself’ (John 5:26).
“Bruce Ware, I think rightly, adds the following argument for eternal generation: ‘Since the Father is really Father, as opposed to being Father nominally (i.e., in name only), and since the Father is eternal Father, then it follows that he must really have a Son, who is genuinely from Him (otherwise He isn’t really Father), and that this Son from Him must likewise be eternally from Him (otherwise He isn’t eternally Father).’
“What, then, does the eternal generation of the Son mean? It means that the Son is in some sense ‘from’ the Father. But beyond that, it is easier to define what it does not mean than to clearly explain what it does mean. Eternal generation is not something that ever began, but it is eternal. It does not mean that the Son was created by the Father. And it does not mean that the Father possesses any of the attributes of God in a greater measure than the Son.
“Speaking positively, we can say that the eternal generation of the Son implies that (1) the Son is of the same essence as the Father (for a father begets a son like himself), (2) the Son is a distinct person from the Father (for the Son is begotten and the Father is unbegotten), and (3) there is a specific order in the relationship between Father and Son (the biblical pattern is always from the Father through the Son, as in 1 Cor. 8:6). But all three of these points can be established from the clear testimony of many passages of Scripture without any need for a doctrine of eternal generation (as is evident, for example, from the fact that I affirmed all three of these points in the first edition of this book while denying eternal generation). Still, the idea of the eternal generation of the Son implies all three of these points at once, while otherwise they would have to be established by a combination of the teachings of several different verses.
“Can we explain anything more about what happens in this eternal generation? What kind of generation is this? There have been at least two common explanations that do not clearly contradict any text of Scripture or any essential element in the doctrine of the Trinity:
A. Eternal generation means that the Father eternally communicates to the Son the divine essence, so that the Son fully shares in every attribute of the Father. John 5:26 can be understood to support this idea: ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.’ This does not mean that the Father is greater than the Son in any attribute, for the Father’s communication of the divine essence is so complete that the Son is the ‘exact imprint’ (or exact duplicate) of the Father (Heb. 1:3). And because this generation is eternal, the Son was not created but eternally existed as ‘the only begotten Son.’ This has been the most common view through the history of the church.
B. Eternal generation means that the Father is the source of the personal distinctions between Father and Son (and, by implication, the Holy Spirit), but he is not the source of their divine essence (or being). This was the view of John Calvin, who was concerned that the first option (saying that the Father communicates the divine essence to the Son) seems to imply that the Son and Spirit are lesser deities, that they somehow do not fully have all the attributes of the Father.
“I find it difficult to decide between these two options, but option (a) seems to be a more natural conclusion from the meaning ‘only begotten’ (John 1:14, 18; 3:16), from the very names Father and Son, and from verses that speak of the Son as the Word of God (John 1:1-2), ‘the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature’ (Heb. 1:3), and the one whom the Father has granted to ‘have life in himself’ (John 5:26).
“However, I am not convinced that God has revealed enough information in Scripture for us to affirm or deny either option (a) or (b) with confidence. The actual meaning of the eternal generation of the Son might in fact be option (c), an explanation that we do not now understand or even know about. What we do have is five verses that say that Christ is the ‘only begotten’ Son of the Father, and we have other verses that teach that God is eternal. Therefore, we can affirm with confidence the eternal generation of the Son. But we are dealing here with a topic of great mystery, and it seems wise to admit that much of this topic remains among the ‘secret things’ that ‘belong to the Lord our God’ (Deut. 29:29).”
Wooow🔥🔥🔥🙌🙌🙌🙌
The bible I read refers to a wide variety of sons of god, including Genesis 6 which were corrupt sons of god. Your "mono genes" claim seems to me to be arbitrary. Mono - for example - can be "alone" or "isolated". And "gene" can mean "descent" or "birth" or lineage. So even if John intended to describe Jesus as having arisen from some sort of "isolated lineage" that would lineage would not necessarily imply that he was not created. Everyone I know who is in a lineage was created by their parents.
From what you’re saying it appears that “unique” is the best translation of “monogenes
Refreshing simple to the point, addressing King James idolatry, but pronounce μονογενῆ as monoyenis
Scripture teaches about the Only begotten Son of God clearly.
Begotten Son of God isn't termed in the biological sense. Read the decree of God in Psalm 2:7 which is taught by the Apostles in Acts 13 :33-34 as raised / Resurrected / lifted up. Continue reading verse 35 which says, Thou shalt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Verse 37
Begotten Son of God is preached by the Apostles, which means the raised Christ. Verse 38.
In the gospel of John 3:14 Jesus Christ spoke about the Only begotten Son of God through the old testament prophetic verse. Verse 3:15 & 16 John established the truth about the Only begotten Son of God, which scripture talks later Marvelous truth. Muslims / Yehowah Witnesses aren't given by God this Truth.
Praise God
Hallelujah
*Ben Grist* Bravo well done thank-you sir for taking the time to explain G3439. monogenés *One of a Kind* monogenés: only begotten
Original Word: μονογενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: monogenés
Phonetic Spelling: (mon-og-en-ace')
Definition: only begotten
Usage: only, only-begotten; unique.
3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") - properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" - literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).
Thanks, glad to help!
Great video! Thank you!! God bless.
Let us replace your version of the meaning in the other verses in scripture where the word Μονογενής (Monogenes) is used
Luk 9:38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is my, ONE OF A KIND (Monogenes) child.
Luk 8:42 For he had ONE OF A KIND (Monogenes) daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.
Luk 7:12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the ONE OF A KIND (Monogenes) son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.
In all these verses Μονογενής (Monogenes) can mean only one thing and that is ONLY BEGOTTEN and NOT, one of a kind. But when it comes to Jesus it suddenly has a different meaning.
Isaac was Abrahams only begotten son. Ismael was not the son of Abrahams wife, God never accepts sin or its consequences, and would therefore not refer to Ismael as his son.
The raw meaning of "monogenēs" is indeed "one of a kind." Other meanings can be derived from it based on context; for example, if someone has no siblings, then they are indeed "one of a kind" in that they are the only one of their kind in regard to their relationship to their parents - they are their parents' only child.
In Jesus' case, he is God's "one of a kind" son for a different reason: relative to God's other sons (e.g. David, Solomon, etc*), he was sinless and therefore was one of a kind among his brothers.
* *1. David.* : *_Psalm 89:20-26._*_ I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him...He will call out to me, _*_‘YOU ARE MY FATHER,_*_ my God, the Rock my Savior.’_
* *2. Solomon* : *_2nd Samuel _**_7:13_**_-14._*_ He [Solomon] is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. _*_I WILL BE HIS FATHER AND HE WILL BE MY SON._*_ When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands._
@@SaintFort So now all of sudden the meanings of words can be "raw"? Shall I infer that other meanings are "rare" , "medium rare", and "well done"? Then you pick the meaning that fits your pre-determined theology? How about if the "raw meaning" is something more like "isolated lineage"?
As to your so-called "one of a kind" son, I dispute that on grounds that my bible refers to a whole lotta "sons of god", including the Genesis 6 sons of god.
AS to your "indeed one of kind" siblings, it seems to me that Jesus had a lotta siblings because the bible that I read refers to a lotta "sons of god". Apparently, even Mary had other kids and apparently Jesus had a brother. So, your claims seem to me to be pretty flimsy.
I’ve heard this argument before. The problem is it commits the either or fallacy and is thereby invalid. “Unique” or “one of a kind” are not the only alternatives to “only-begotten.” According to BDAG, monogenes can also be translated, “one and only” or simply “only” which is exactly what the modern translations do.
I’m currently doing a deep dive into this whole matter. But I know one thing for certain which is that your argument for “only-begotten” fails.
@@thetrinitysolution9631 maybe you can do an unbiased "deep dive" on whether the bible teach a trinity. To this day the Jewish people would say NO. any encyclopedia will tell you NO it does not, it is assumed because there is clearly God the Father, the Son of God, and the Spirit of God.
The Bible is very clear on the fact that ther is only one God that has no God, and that is God the Father, Daniel describes Him as the Ancient of days. Jesus states that He has a God His Father, that He is submissave to.
Mat 27:46, John 20:17, 1 Cor3:23, 1Cor 11:3, 2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3, Eph 1:17, 1 Pet 1:3, Rev 3:12
There can be no doubt that Jesus is God, because He is the real Son of God, but He also bow to His Father, which is His God, where the Father Has NO God, and that is why the Father, as stated in 1 Tim 6 15,16 is the only Potentate, the One that dwells in Light that no man can approach, no man has seen, or has seen.
1 Cor 8:6 states the beliefs of Paul and the early church, and that is "that there is but one God, the Father" and He has a Son.
I would sugest study the bible and not preconceived doctrines and use selected texts to prove such doctrines.
Bibles Psalm 2:7
David is also called the "begotten son"
“I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
@@davidbrachetto1420
Psalms are part of the old testament. Books taken from the Hebrew Bible before Jesus was born.
But David had a mortal mother and farther . Jesus had a mortal mother but an immortal farther . Big difrence . Don't just look at the word begotten . But what's behind it
@@alphaomega619
God does not have any relatives.
God created Adam with a mother or a father. He creates what He wills.
Could "only kind son" suggest that all humanity are daughters and sons of God and that Jesus was the one male member of humanity God loved most?
Hi Alex, I agree that all humanity are seen of as God’s sons and daughters, but more in an adopted sense like in the start of Ephesians, but Jesus is God’s only actual son in that sense, he is the first born and the only one referred to as THE Son of God as apposed to other places when others are referred to sons, daughters and children of God
@@BenGristUK Adam is also referred to as The Son.
Jacob is God's first born son.
He was until others were also begotten of Gods word. I peter 1:3, James 1:18.
Isaac is a type of Christ Jesus is the only Begotten.
Yea the Greek fathers who spoke the Greek as their 1st language understood the word to mean only generated. They didn't think that the Word was physically generated. The analogy was more about how Mind generates Word. I'll stick with the the successors of the apostles who spoke Greek.
If Jesus is the one of a kind God then he's not consubstantial with the Father
You seem to be denying the inter trinitarian relations. Thats the only thing that distinguishes the persons of the Trinity.
There's a difference between the 1stborn and begotten. Ishmael and Issac.
Would be good if some 4-5 years on that your knowledge has increased as to how incorrect you are.