son

aaron-burden-J2XuOsy4mJE-unsplash-fotor-20240210205434

Why Did Jesus Call Himself the Son of Man?

While on the earth the first time, our Lord Jesus Christ, on a few occasions, referred to himself as the “Son of God” (John 9:35-37; 3:16; 10:36; 11:4). But more often, he called himself the “son of man.” What did he mean when he used the title “son of man” for himself?

Many theologians, who have imbibed the Trinitarian dogma, teach that the term means a different thing when made in reference to Jesus Christ than when it is made in relation to other persons. They say the phrase “son of man” refers to his humanity, which we agree with, while the term “son of God” means he is God, which is partially wrong. This Trinitarian theology asserts that Jesus was both God and man at the same time during his first advent to this earth. It must be said that this concept about the nature of Jesus Christ during his Incarnation does not align with the teachings of the Bible. In this article, we want to briefly look at what our Lord Jesus Christ meant by calling himself the Son of man.

Son of Man

The phrase “son of man” was used 109 times in the Hebrew Bible, including the Book of Ezekiel where it was used 94 times. In the New Testament, Jesus used this title exclusively in reference to himself. Mark recorded it 15 times, Matthew made 32 records of it, Luke recorded it 26 times, and John wrote it 12 times in his gospel, and 2 times in the Book of Revelation (1:13; 14:14). Philip and Paul used the term once each in reference to Jesus Christ (Acts 7:56; Heb. 2:6).

The phrase was used first in Numbers 23:19 which reads, “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?” (Num. 23:19 ESV).

Here, Balaam used Hebrew parallelism, which was very common in Hebrew writings. It involves the repetition, in the second part, of what has already been expressed in the first while simply varying the words. Here, the phrase “son of man” was used as a synonym of “man,” both of which simply means a human being. It was employed in Hebrew writings for the purpose of making emphasis.

This parallelism is also used in Job 25:6; 35:8; Psalm 8:4; 80:17; 144:3; Isaiah 51:12; 56:2; Jeremiah 49:18, 33; 50:40; 51:43. These passages make us understand that the term “son of man” was used to emphasise the fact that we are human brings and that we are not God who is immortal.

Why did Jesus Christ use the term for himself?

It appears that our Lord Jesus Christ often called himself “son of man” to emphasise the fact that he was a human being. And this was the way the apostles understood him. Peter called him “Jesus of Nazareth, a man [a human being] attested to you by God” (Acts 2:22, bold emphasis and words in square brackets are mine). Paul wrote, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men [human beings], the man [human being] Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5). He also wrote this about our Lord Jesus Christ:

“Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had the power of death. [15] Only in this way could he set free all who have lived their lives as slaves to the fear of dying. [16] We also know that the Son did not come to help angels; he came to help the descendants of Abraham. [17] Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made in every respect like us, his brothers and sisters, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. Then he could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people.” (Heb. 2:14-17 NLT, emphases added).

The reader should note the words in verse 17. He was in every respect like us. In other words, he was 100 percent human. He was not God putting on a human body during his first advent.

The first century believers understood our Lord Jesus Christ to be a human being. The Trinitarian formulation that our Lord Jesus Christ possessed both the human and divine natures during his Incarnation was unknown to them. Jesus Christ himself never gave anyone the idea that he possessed two natures while he was on the earth the first time. He never said he was God and human being at the same time.

Christ’s frequent use of the title “son of man” for himself was his way of emphasising the fact that he was entirely human.

The distinction many teachers make between Jesus Christ as a “son of man” and the usage of the term for other people like Ezekiel or Daniel (Dan. 8:17) has no biblical support. Their reference to Daniel 7:13 as a different kind of “son of man” is theoretical. When Daniel saw the vision he recorded in that place, what he wrote simply was that the one who came to the Ancient of days [God] in the clouds of heaven was “one like a son of man” (Dan. 7:13). What Daniel wrote was that he looked like a human being.

Conclusion

Each time Jesus used the term “son of man” for himself, he simply emphasised the fact that he was a human being. That was the way his first disciples who walked, talked, touched, and ate with him knew him. There is no biblical record which suggest that they viewed him as God who put on human flesh while he was on the earth. The Trinitarian teaching which says our Lord Jesus Christ was perfect God and perfect man at the same time has been proved beyond all doubt to be unbiblical and untrue. Jesus Christ did not have two natures while he was on the earth. There is no false doctrine in Christendom worse than the Trinity dogma invented in the fourth century CE.

priscilla-du-preez-x_jAYPjskYI-unsplash-fotor-2024021020031

Is the Doctrine of the Eternal Begetting of the Son Biblical?

Jesus Begatting, Biblical, Doctrine, eternal, son

The eternal generation of the Son, also known as the eternal begetting of the Son, is the teaching that the Son is eternally begotten by God the Father. It is defined in words which, in the final analysis, deny the literal notion of begetting of children by their fathers. The teaching is that the Son is not created or caused, and that neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is dependent upon the Father or any other member of the Godhead for existence. The eternal generation of the Son doctrine has to be taken to mean that the Father did not bring the Son into existence, which would deny the absolute Godhood of the Son. To the inventors of the Trinitarian theory, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit) are coequal and coeternal – that is, none is [or existed] before or after another; none is greater or less than another.

A definition given by Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823 – 1886) in his Outlines of Theology, page 182, is as follows:

“The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.”

Hodge also wrote, “In order to guard their doctrine of derivation and eternal generation from all gross anthropomorphic conceptions, they carefully maintained that it was—(1) αχρονος timeless, eternal; (2) ασωματως not bodily, spiritual; (3) αορατος invisible; (4) αχωριστως not a local transference, a communication not without but within the Godhead ; (5) απαθως without passion or change; (6) παντελως ακαταληπτος, altogether incomprehensible.” (ibid, page 183).

Objections to the Eternal Generation Dogma

A number of objections can be brought against the eternal generation theory:

The Son is said to have been generated through the “eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will…” In other words, God acted in a will-less manner when He generated the Son. Has the Almighty Father ever done anything will-lessly like a robot? By their teaching, they have reduced the Almighty Father to a mere puppet.
The inventors of Trinitarianism often appeal to the incomprehensibility of the “three persons of the Godhead.” I believe they do this to get away with the charges that would be brought against them. Since they knew that the Trinity is incomprehensible, why did they attempt to teach the world a subject that is beyond human understanding? Ironically, this explains why they taught the world things which are unbiblical, confusing, false, and heretical. Moreover, the fact that they issued canons and creeds on an incomprehensible subject exposes their arrogance.
If the eternal generation of the Son is “by the necessity of nature ” and if that nature, according to them, is shared by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then it is no longer the Father alone that eternally generated the Son. It then also means that the Son was also involved in the generation or begetting of the Son. This is an absurdity.
The greatest objection that can be brought against these suppositions of the fourth century church fathers is that all the Bible texts they cite do not have any idea of eternal generation. The Bible texts include Prov. 8:23, Psa. 2:7, John 5:26, John 1:18, 3:16, Col. 1:15, and Heb. 1:3. None of these verses say the begetting of the Son was “a communication not without but within the Godhead,” “timeless,” “without passion or change,” and “altogether incomprehensible.” The word “today” (Psa. 2:7) cannot be interpreted as a timeless eternity. The fact that the Father produced or generated the Son is enough proof that He pre-existed the Son. Therefore, the Trinitarian theory that there was never a time when the Father was without the Son, or coeternity of the Father and the Son, is equally untenable. What the Bible has revealed is that before the “beginning” when the universe was created (Gen. 1:1), the Son had been with the Father (John 1:1). Job 38:4-7 shows that even the angels had been created before that “beginning.” Would it then be right for anyone to say that the angels are coeternal with the Father? No!
John 5:26 does not support the eternal generation theory. The verse says, “For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself” (NASB 2020). Only the Father did not receive the “life in Himself” from any other being. The “life in Himself” which the Son has was given to him by the Father. This “life in Himself’ is the fountain of life from which life is given to creation. The fact that the Father did not receive it from any other being is enough proof that the Father is the only uncaused being. The Son would not have been given “life in Himself” by the Father if he were indeed a coequal, self-existed, and Almighty God.

How the word “eternal” got into the generation of the Son

The following is an excerpt from an online article by the The Very Reverend Samuel G. Candler:

“It was apparently Athanasius, who was a secretary to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria at the time, who came up with the phrase “eternally begotten,” to describe the co-eternal existence of Christ, the Son, with the Father. He was trying to defend the early Trinitarian theology of the time, that Jesus the Christ had to be completely and eternally equal to the Father. For Athanasius, Jesus could not be lesser than the Father in any way; Jesus had to be of the same substance and of the same eternity. Thus, the addition of the word, “eternally” to “begotten.” Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, but he has also always existed with (and as) God. He is as eternal as the Father. His relationship as the Son is “eternal,” which is to say the relationship is “outside time.” God has always been Father, and Jesus has always been Son.” – “What Does ‘Eternally Begotten’ Mean?” by The Very Reverend Samuel G. Candler, Dean of the Cathedral of St. Philip, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

It is evident that the bigoted zeal of Trinitarians to deny the fact that the Son is neither coequal nor coeternal with the Father, and therefore inferior and subordinate to the Father, led them to add “eternal” to the word “begotten.” But there is no such thing as “eternal generation,” as defined by Trinitarians, in the Bible. What is revealed for our knowledge is that Jesus Christ had been with God before the beginning. The “beginning” was the time when God created the universe (Gen. 1:1). If we should go by biblical chronological account, the beginning was about 6000 years ago. At what time the Son was begotten, prior to the beginning, is not revealed in the Bible. And there is no way our speculation can lead us to any accurate answer. We should be satisfied with what has been revealed to us (Deut. 29:29). Any attempt to peer into what the angels of God dared not look into (Isa. 6:2) always makes God to give the people confusion. Nimrod and his generation suffered for attempting to do the unthinkable (Gen. 11:1-9). The fourth century church fathers did the same, albeit in a different way. The result is the same. They got confused and “gifted” the Christian world with the confusion.

Conclusion

If we are satisfied with what the Bible has revealed, the clear account is that the Father produced the Son from His own being, making the Son divine just as the Father. It cannot be denied that the Father pre-existed the Son whom He brought forth out of Himself. This makes the Father eternally greater than, and superior to, the Son. Our Lord Jesus Christ called the Father, “My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.” (John 20:17). He also said, “I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). If we have read these verses and believe them, we will have no problem in recognising the Trinity doctrine as a fourth century (second) “tower of Babel.”

As rightly written by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “The first mark of a believer of Christ is that he believes his Lord. We do not follow the Lord at all if we raise any questions on points about which He speaks explicitly. Even if a doctrine is surrounded by ten thousand difficulties, the ipse dixit [Latin literarily, “he himself said it,” that is, any word from the mouth]of the Lord Jesus sweeps them all away, so far as true Christians are concerned. Our Master’s declaration is all the argument we need… He cannot err; He cannot lie; if He says, …there is an end of all debate.” – “The Power in Prayer,” Whitaker House, 1996, p. 12. (ISBN 0-88368-692-9).

The entire Trinity dogma is not only unbiblical, it was packaged by spiritually arrogant men who tried to go beyond what has been written. That was why it was enforced by worldly powers with monstrous brutality. Although people are no longer forced to believe in the Trinity, the confusion and delusion it has brought into Christian doctrine cannot be quantified. The formulators of the Trinitarian theory not only brought Tritheism into Christian teaching, but also denigrated the Supreme God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is Jesus the “Only Begotten” or “One of a Kind” Son of God?

Articles God, jesus, Only begotten, son

The word “only begotten” is translated from the Greek μονογενής (monogenés). The word was used nine times in the New Testament – three times by Luke for a child who have no siblings (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38), five times by Apostle John in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), and once by Apostle Paul in relation to Isaac (Heb. 11:17).

In most of the English versions of the Bible, the word used by the translators is “only begotten.” But in some modern versions like the NIV, NLT, BSB, NASB, GNT, ESV, ISV, NET, monogenés is translated as “one and only son,” “only son,” “unique son,” or “one and only.” The NASB still had “only begotten Son” in John 3:16 in its 1995 edition. But in its 2020 edition, it was changed to “only Son.” The problem posed to any Christian is the determining which of these versions he should accept as the one having the correct English interpretation of monogenés.

Ever since the King James Bible became the notable version used by most English readers, especially among Protestant churches, including Evangelicals and Pentecostals, the orthodox belief is that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, the only one He generated or brought forth out of Himself directly. We have known that the “begettal” of the Son was different from the procreation of humans through the sexual union of a male and female. But modern Bible scholars are now saying that the word “begotten” was an erroneous translation of the word monogenésused by John.

According to them, the word μονογενής (monogenés) is a Greek adjective having two parts, μονο (mono), meaning “only” and γενής (genés). The scholars argue that the second part is derived from the root word γένος (genos), meaning “class,” “kind,” “one of a kind,” or “unique,” which does not have the notion of begetting or derivation by birth. The word γεννάω (gennaō), meaning “beget,” or “bear,” is said not to be a correct root for μονογενής (monogenés). They said that, whereas genos has one v (pronounced nu), gennaō has two vv (two nu’s). It is instructive to note that the Nicene Fathers used γεννάω (gennaō) twice in the Nicene Creed of AD 325. Did these men, who read and wrote Greek not know the correct meaning of monogenés? That question is beyond the scope of this article. But it need be said that the fourth century church fathers did much havoc to the doctrine of the Bible. There are many false theories they can be charged with. But here is one, for example. They said that while Jesus was on the earth, he was both God and man dwelling in one body simultaneously (Athanasian Creed, Lines 30-37). They went on to teach that as touching Christ’s Godhead [Godhood], he was equal to the Father, but inferior to the Father, having respect to his manhood (Line 33). How could Jesus Christ have been equal to the Father and be inferior to Him at the same time? This is a teaching of absurdity, not an explanation of the Bible.

Here are other findings I made on the subject under discussion:

In the first Latin translations of the Greek New Testament, the word unicus meaning “sole,” “single,” or “unique” is used in all the nine places where monogenés is found. It was Jerome who changed unicus to unigenitus (only begotten) in his Biblia Vulgata published in AD 405. He did it perhaps to counter what Trinitarians term the Arian heresy.
The scholarly argument against “only begotten” as an interpretation of monogenés did not start today. It has been found that as far back as 1883, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), an Anglican, who became the Bishop of the Diocese of Durham (1890-1901), published his Commentary on the Epistles of St. John in which he wrote that “unique,” rather than “only begotten” should be the interpretation of monogenés. Other publications which disagreed with the “only begotten” interpretation followed Westcott’s until, eventually, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) in 1946 changed “only begotten” to ”only” in the five Johannine verses. Other modern English versions followed. The translators of the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the version held as having the most accurate interpretation of the Bible, has recently done the same in their 2020 edition.
The translators of the New English Translation (NET) Bible made a footnote to John 3:16, which includes the following: “Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).”
Monogenés also occurs a few times in the Septuagint (or LXX), the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, written from the third through the first centuries BCE. In Judges 11:34 it is used for Jephthah’s daughter, an only child. And it occurs in Tobit 3:15 which says, “… I am my father’s only child; he has no other child to be his heir …” It is also used three times in the Psalms, obviously with the senses of “only” and “alone”: “only life” in Psa. 22:20 (LXX 21:21), “alone” in Psa. 25:16 (LXX 24:16), and “only life” in Psa. 35:17 (LXX 34:17).
In the five places where the word us used of a child’s relationship with the father or mother (Judg. 11:34; Tobit 3:15; Luke 7:12; 9:38; 8:42), the sense has been that of being an only child, having no siblings. The sense of being produced by birth, which is normal for all humans, is not in focus in all of them. This might have been the same sense in which Apostle John called Jesus the “monogenés huios,” the only son of God, who has no siblings. However, the fact that God has other sons – angels and humans – who are His sons by creation, Jesus’s sonship must be of a different type.(cf. John 20:17). What makes his own sonship unique is not expressly spelt out in the Bible. The Byzantine fathers who formulated the Trinitarian dogma only surmised that it was the fact that God begot him. They could be right. But there is no explicit biblical warrant for this. The uniqueness of Christ might have been due to the fact that he is the only one that God granted His own divinity (cf. John 5:26; Col. 2:9). If this is true, the begetting of the Son by the Father cannot be ruled out as what John had in mind when he wrote monogenés; Christ’s divinity will point in only one direction, that of the Son being brought out of the very person of God Himself. The divine law of God is that everything produce their own kind (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25, etc.). Spirit begets spirit (John 3:6). The Godhood of the Son of God means no more than the fact that God brought him forth out of Himself. This begettal is not the same as human procreation that requires a sexual union of a male and a female. Therefore, it should never be thought of as a sexual union between God and the virgin named Myriam. The Son was begotten before the creation of the universe (John 1:1-3; Heb.1:2; Col. 1:16). His begettal took place long before his incarnation, when his divinity was temporarily suspended by God and was born as a human being. He pre-existed his supernatural conception and birth by Myriam.
The Bible has revealed that the angels of God also called “sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). The first human, Adam, has also been called the “son of God” (Luke 3:38). The phrase “sons of God” is used six times in the New Testament in relation to believers in Christ (John 1:12; Rom. 8:14, 19; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1-2). Angels and Adam are sons of God because they derived their lives directly from God. We, the believers in Christ, are adopted into God’s family through His Son Jesus Christ. That’s what entitled us to be called the sons of God. It is biblically clear that our Lord Jesus Christ is not the only Son of God. The use of “only Son” by some translators is misleading. They need to immediately revisit their use of that phrase.

Was Jesus Not Birthed By God?

Besides the verses in which the Lord Jesus Christ is called the monogenés, is there a single biblical text in which Jesus is called the begotten son of God? Yes, there is. It is found in the Messianic Psalm 2. Verses 1-7 reads:

Psalms 2:1-7 NKJV

[1] “Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing? [2] The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, [3] “Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us.” [4] He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. [5] Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure: [6] “Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion.” [7] “I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”

Some scholars and commentators have said the anointed king (v. 2) is a reference to David(1 Sam.16:12-13) or Solomon (2 Sam. 7:12-15). But the apostles have clearly stated that Psalm 2 refers exclusively to the Messiah Jesus. See Acts 4:25-27.

In the original Hebrew text, the word translated “begotten” is יָלַד (yalad). In the Septuagint (or LXX), the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the Greek word used is γεγέννηκά (gegennēka). Both the Hebrew and Greek words mean the same thing. They mean to bear, bring forth, bear (of child birth), beget, gender, travail, procreate. See Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon #3205 and Greek #1080, as well as Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions #3542. There in Psalm 2 lies the clear proof that our Lord Jesus Christ was begotten by God. God brought him forth out of Himself, not through any carnal union with any other person, but supernaturally out of Himself. Apostle Paul made reference to the begettal of Jesus Christ three times (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5). In the three places, he used the Greek word γεγέννηκά (gegennēka) which was exactly the same word used in Psa. 2:7 (LXX). The idea that our Lord Jesus Christ was the begotten Son of God was not strange to the apostles. With this in mind, the argument that the etymology of μονογενής (monogenés) forbids the notion of begottenness is inconsequential as far as the five Johannine verses, in which Jesus is called the begotten Son of God, are concerned.

A Few Dissenting Voices

There are still some scholars who have disagreed with the “one and only Son” or the “one-of -a-kind Son” definition of monogenés by the modern translators. One of them is Charles Lee Irons (PhD in New Testament Studies) who published in 2017 an essay captioned ‘A Lexical Defense of the Johannine “Only Begotten.”’ In it, Irons wrote that he found “at least 145” words in ancient Greek that are built on the genés suffix of monogenés. He wrotethat the largest number of them have the idea of being born or produced.

In an online article with the title ‘Monogenés: “Only Begotten” or “One of a Kind,”?’ written by Larry G. Brigden, and published by Christian Study Library, he took the same position as Charles Lee Irons. In his argument, which was evidently in defence of Trinitarianism, he advanced a number of points against the “one and only Son” or “only Son” renderings in our modern versions. Two of the points raised by him are quoted here:

“Secondly, the claim that the γενης ending of μονογενης is to be derived from γενος, with the meaning ‘class’, ‘sort’, ‘kind’, may be tested by examining the meaning of the γενης ending in similar Greek adjectives which also have the same two-part structure. The following is a list of such adjectives:”

He then gave the list, with my additions in square brackets:

Αγεηνς [agenḗs]: not of noble birth; low born

Αγεννης [agennḗs]: low born

δῠσγενής [dusgenḗs]: lowborn, lowly born

ευγενης [eugenḗs]: well born, high born

ομογενης [omogenes]: related, of the same race or family, akin.

πολυγενης [paliggenesia]: to be born again, generated anew

πολυγενης [paliggenesia]: of many families

προγενης [progenes]: born before

πρωτογενης [prōtogenēs]: firstborn.

συγγενης [syngeneís] related, akin.

Having supplied the sample words, Brigden then drove the point home by writing: “It may be observed that in all these words the concept of ‘begetting’ or ‘derivation by birth’ is clearly present. So how may it be confidently asserted that μονογενης does not contain the concept of ‘begetting’? The assertion does not appear to be confirmed by objective evidence. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the concept of ‘begetting’ or ‘derivation by birth’ certainly can be conveyed by the γενης ending. It is therefore entirely possible that μονογενης means ‘only begotten’.”

He made another point by writing, “From this examination of the two etymologies for μονογενης, it may be concluded that the meaning ‘only begotten’ is entirely possible. Certainly there are no grounds for summarily dismissing that meaning as is often done. On the other hand, the etymology of μονογενης which insists on deriving the γενης ending from γενος and then arbitrarily restricts the possible meanings of γενος within a narrow range, though those same meanings are not applied to other similar Greek words, cannot be considered an impartial or scientific etymology.”

Abraham’s Son, Isaac

The author of the Book of Hebrews wrote:

Hebrews 11:17-19 NKJV

[17] “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, [18] of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” [19] concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.”

Some Bible scholars and commentators have argued that since Isaac was not the only biological son of Abraham, the word μονογενής (monogenés) cannot be rightly interpreted as “only begotten.” They conclude that the better interpretation should be “one and only,” that is, of a different class, or “unique.” But it seems that all those who argue against the begottenness of the Son are driven more by some theological preference than an honest desire to know and teach biblical truth.

Why did Paul use the word μονογενής (monogenés) for Isaac when he knew that he was not the only begotten son of Abraham? The truth is not farfetched. As at the time God tested Abraham (Gen. 22), Ishmael and his mother had been sent away with God’s approval (Gen. 21:8-14). All that were left in Abraham’s house were his only begotten son, Isaac, and the sons of his bought slaves. According to the law, these sons were Abraham’s sons. But they were not his biological or begotten sons. See Exod. 21:2-6; Gen. 17:23-27; 14:14-16; 15:1-4. That was why God had to be specific as to which of these sons Abraham was to offer up as sacrifice. Not to create any doubt in the mind of Abraham, God said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Gen. 22:2 NKJV).

So, as at the time Abraham was tested by God, Abraham had only one son, Isaac, whom he gave birth to. All the other sons in his house were, technically, his sons. But they were not his begotten sons. Apostle Paul was perfectly right when he wrote in Heb. 11:17 that Isaac was the only begotten son of Abraham. In this instance, the sons of Abraham’s slaves, who were legally his sons, were in view when Paul was writing Heb. 11:17-18. Ishmael had been sent away, making Isaac the only begotten son that Abraham would have offered up as sacrifice. Paul couldn’t have written that Isaac was the “one and only” son of Abraham. After Sarah’s death, Abraham married another woman named Keturah, through whom he had other sons (Gen. 25:1-2). All these were born after Abraham had been tested by God. In summary, the only begotten son Abraham had with him as at the time he was tested by God was Isaac.

Conclusion

Even if all Christians should believe this moment that μονογενής (monogenés) does not have the notion of begottenness, it still does not obliterate the fact that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. We cannot fault the scriptures which say he was begotten, as written in Psa. 2:7 (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5). God Himself is the one who said He gave birth to His Son. In Psa. 2:1-7, the Son is no other person than the Messiah. Acts 4:25-27 removes all doubt that Jesus Christ is the one. His begottenness makes him an offspring of God – someone that has a beginning. But his beginning was before the creation of the universe. It is apparent from Job 38:4-7 that even the angels, also known as “morning stars” and “sons of God,” were also already in existence when the universe was created. That Jesus is called God in some places does not make him ”the only God,” as rendered by the ESV in John 1:18. Would the ESV say the Devil and humans are also “the one God” by the mere fact that they are also called Gods in the Bible? It is instructive to note that in Psa. 45:6-7 where the Psalmist called the Son God is the very place where he said that YHWH, the one and only Supreme, self-existent Being called God, is his God. The Psalmist therefore meant that the Godhood of the Son is derived from YHWH, the one God. So, we can confidently say that the Son is a begotten God. The one God is not any other being than the Almighty YHWH (LORD in the Englush versions). He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 20:17; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17; Col. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3; Rev. 3:12). Our Lord Jesus Christ has never been coequal or coeternal with his God and Father, as theorised in the Trinitarian Creeds.

One problem that has plagued theology is that we have dissipated so much time in arguing about particular words, phrases or verses while we remain oblivious to other parts of the Bible that teach and, probably, sheds the light we need on the same subject. So I ask, if μονογενής (monogenés) does not prove that Jesus was begotten by God, has the use of γεγέννηκά (gegennēka) in relation to him not shown that he was indeed begotten of God? The Trinitarians try to escape the truth by saying that Psalm 2 is a reference to King David by citing 1 Sam. 16:12-13. Others say it is a reference to Solomon because God said “I will be a Father to him and he will be my son” (2 Sam. 7:14). But God also said concerning Solomon, “when he does wrong, I will discipline him with a rod of men and with strokes of sons of mankind…” This could not have been said of the Anointed (Messiah or Christ), the one to whom it was said, ”you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions” (Psa. 45:7 ESV). More specifically, the apostles understood Psalm 2 as a prophecy about our Lord Jesus Christ. They declared this in Acts 4:25-27.

The debate about the etymology of μονογενής (monogenés) is totally insignificant because it does not obliterate the biblical fact that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. When he was begotten of the Father is another discussion for another time.

son

Why Did Jesus Call Himself the Son of Man?

Is the Doctrine of the Eternal Begetting of the Son Biblical?

Is Jesus the “Only Begotten” or “One of a Kind” Son of God?

Jude1v3

Navigation

Information