Begotten of the Father before all ages.

[37818]

Thanks for your reply. I can't agree with your dismissal of Hebrews 13:8 and Psalms 2:7. but I need to come back at a later stage when I have considered a little more fully.
For now, may I ask: leaving aside for the moment, the term 'begotten,' do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Son of God before His incarnation?

Yes. He is the Son who appeared for and so He the Son also being the LORD God in Genesis 12:7 and Isaiah 6:5, according to John 1:18.

I believe Hebrews 13:8 and Psalms 2:7 as I had explained.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. He is the Son who appeared for and so He the Son also being the LORD God in Genesis 12:7 and Isaiah 6:5, according to John 1:18

Thank you. Now I'm sorry to be playing the inquisitor here before setting out my position fully, but what do you think is the nature of a Son? How would you define a son, and how would you define a father?

I'll try to come back tomorrow, or Tuesday at the latest, with a detailed post.

 

[timtofly]

The Son of God made Adam before He, the Son Himself became a man.

Impossible. Sonship only happened once. Jesus only died once. But in eternity it happened before time began, in the beginning. The OT veiled that truth, and even Paul in Ephesians 3 pointed it out.

It was not until the last century and the concept of moving back and forth through time, that humans could even acknowledge such a thing. Eternity is not a long period of time. There is no time at all, because God does not change. That is what it means when it says, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. After Jesus Christ completed the Atonement, Jesus Christ stepped out of time, and could appear any where in time. That is the mystery that has only now been revealed as a truth.

 

[percho]

Let us discuss this:
Begotten of the Father before all ages.
The only Bible passage generally presented to defend this is John 1:2.

The main Bible verse which explicitly does not teach this is Psalms 2:7, where the term "begotten" is explictily used explicitly in regards to our Lord's bodially resurrection, Acts of the Apostles 13:33.

I explicitly hold that Persons of the Trinity are co-eternal and co-equal being the One and the same God, Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 6:4. The three Persons are the One LORD God.

As for John 1:2 this signifies the eternal Son was always the Son being also someone beside God. Yes other than God, but John 1:1 makes it explicit that the Son always also "was God," while always being someone else.

A few questions I might have would be; I agree with you on the Psalms 2:7 Acts 13:33, however is that begotten the same begotten of John 1:14 and 3:16? Is it not taking liberty in calling the Word in John 1:2 Son.
Does what was The Word become G1096 through G3439 monogenes a combination of G3441 & G1096.

Relative to God, The Father to the Son, is, "only begotten monogenes," relative to being, of virgin woman?
Kind of like Isaac being the only begotten of Abraham? How the only thing I can think is, the only begotten, of promise.

Another thought. My understanding of, I Am that I Am, is that it literally is, "I shall be who I will be,".
Could it be through, as of only begotten of the Father, the Son was the fulfillment of, I shall be who I will be? The Word made flesh?

 

[Van]

Using the word "begotten" is always problematic. By my count, monogenes is mistranslated as "only begotten" 9 times in the NASB NT. OTOH, gennao is translated as "begotten" four times, Acts of the Apostles 13:33, Philemon 1:10, and Hebrews 1:5, 5:5.

The word gennao has multiple meanings, such as "to cause to exist." So here (in these four verses) what did God "cause to exist?" God the Son? Nope, He is eternal and has always existed. So lets take a look:

Act 13:33
that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’

This is a reference to Psalm 2:7, and here is the explanation from the NET footnote:

24sn ‘You are my son!’ The Davidic king was viewed as God’s “son” (see 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26-27). The idiom reflects ancient Near Eastern adoption language associated with covenants of grant, by which a lord would reward a faithful subject by elevating him to special status, referred to as “sonship.” Like a son, the faithful subject received an “inheritance,” viewed as an unconditional, eternal gift. Such gifts usually took the form of land and/or an enduring dynasty.​

So the idea is the "sonship" elevates the "servant" to special status, i.e. Christ as the heir of the Davidic kingship. So the concept is God "raised up the king" providing evidence of the King of Kings.

Philemon 1:10
I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment,

Paul referred to those he had brought to faith in Christ as his children in the faith. What did Paul cause to exist? Not the born anew believer, God alone does that, but the wretch who understands his or her situation and puts his or her faith fully in Christ alone for salvation. And these "family members" are part of the "eternal rewards" of effective ministry.

Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?
And again,
“I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?

Here we have two references to the OT (Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14) which refer to the second coming of Christ (not as a lowly servant but as the risen King of Kings) whose "special status" was "caused to exist" by God the Father.


Hebrews 5:5
So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”;

Here the "special status" in view is Christ as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedik."

In summary, none of the verses refers to creating God the Son, but rather to the bestowal of "special status" on the Son.

 

[37818]

Impossible. Sonship only happened once. Jesus only died once. But in eternity it happened before time began, in the beginning.

That explains your interpretation. Now what do you see to be definitive proof that what happen in time with the Word effectively occures out side of time with the word. Please step me through your thinking.

 

[37818]

. . . however is that begotten the same begotten of John 1:14 and 3:16?

No. That being "begotten" has the root word of the meaning "to be." μονογενής with the usage to mean an only child. Unique or only. One of a kind.

Is it not taking liberty in calling the Word in John 1:2 Son.

Yes, fhat is a matter of interpretation.

Does what was The Word become G1096 through G3439 monogenes a combination of G3441 & G1096.

Yes, uniquely made, one of a kind, an only child.

Relative to God, The Father to the Son, is, "only begotten monogenes," relative to being, of virgin woman?

No.

Kind of like Isaac being the only begotten of Abraham? How the only thing I can think is, the only begotten, of promise.

Yes. Isaac was not his only son, but his son of the promise.

 

[timtofly]

That explains your interpretation. Now what do you see to be definitive proof that what happen in time with the Word effectively occures out side of time with the word. Please step me through your thinking.

The Word is physical because it provides the whole of physical reality. The Bible is physical because it is the tangible thoughts of God in relationship to humanity throughout history. Jesus was the physical Son of God, fully God, and fully human flesh. These are all the physical property and person of the transcendent God. They do not contradict each other, nor subtract or replace each other.

The issue is understanding eternity itself. It is not a very long or infinite time. It is the total absence of time. That is not my interpretation. That is the proclamation of Truth. God declares in the Bible that God does not change. Change requires time. No time, no change. I do not claim to understand the fullness of that truth, nor do I claim to even understand eternity, other than the lack of time. God is able to view all of creation historically at one time. Nor does the Bible point out that humans can enter eternity. There will be a new Heavens and earth, and we will be moved into this new existence in an instance as the old reality is destroyed.

But the fact that God the Father became a Father one time in human history is the point of the only begotten thought process. God the Father only became a reality at that point as well. Before the Conception God the Father was Lord God. It was Lord God, The Word, and the Spirit. The OT examples were looking to the human future to the point where God the Father and God the Son would be human reality. But in eternity to GOD, it always was a reality. Looking back with current human understanding of moving through time, clarifies the reality of a post glorified body, the Lamb, as always being before creation, a reality in eternity. Before Jesus, the OT, could only see a pre-incarnate reality in the physical only. They called this future reality the Messiah. It is clear that Abraham and Moses knew the truth, and also Enoch, who I believe was also Elijah, one human who would never die. Enoch left and returned as Elijah, not reborn, but translated from earth to eternity and back as Elijah. Both Moses and Elijah were translated to the mount of transfiguration, which may indicate Moses did not die. Moses just gave Yeshua an epitaph to give to the Hebrews to remember him. Both Moses and Elijah are witnesses to us today that God is able to do things that Satan can only offer us as science fiction. Probably the only OT humans who can and have entered into eternity. Otherwise they are just in heaven but exist separate from the souls under the alter, those elect, whom the second death have no power over.

 

[37818]

Another thought. My understanding of, I Am that I Am, is that it literally is, "I shall be who I will be,".
Could it be through, as of only begotten of the Father, the Son was the fulfillment of, I shall be who I will be? The Word made flesh?

An interesting interpretation, I am of the view point that was the Son by reason of John 1:18. Exodus 3:14, John 8:24.

 

[37818]

The Word is physical because it provides the whole of physical reality. The Bible is physical because it is the tangible thoughts of God in relationship to humanity throughout history. Jesus was the physical Son of God, fully God, and fully human flesh. These are all the physical property and person of the transcendent God. They do not contradict each other, nor subtract or replace each other.

That is argument, an interpretation. The Word was before the Word becoming flesh, John 1:1, John 1:14.

But the fact that God the Father became a Father one time in human history is the point of the only begotten thought process. God the Father only became a reality at that point as well. Before the Conception God the Father was Lord God. It was Lord God, The Word, and the Spirit. The OT examples were looking to the human future to the point where God the Father and God the Son would be human reality. But in eternity to GOD, it always was a reality. Looking back with current human understanding of moving through time, clarifies the reality of a post glorified body, the Lamb, as always being before creation, a reality in eternity. Before Jesus, the OT, could only see a pre-incarnate reality in the physical only. They called this future reality the Messiah. It is clear that Abraham and Moses knew the truth, and also Enoch, who I believe was also Elijah, one human who would never die. Enoch left and returned as Elijah, not reborn, but translated from earth to eternity and back as Elijah. Both Moses and Elijah were translated to the mount of transfiguration, which may indicate Moses did not die. Moses just gave Yeshua an epitaph to give to the Hebrews to remember him. Both Moses and Elijah are witnesses to us today that God is able to do things that Satan can only offer us as science fiction. Probably the only OT humans who can and have entered into eternity. Otherwise they are just in heaven but exist separate from the souls under the alter, those elect, whom the second death have no power over.

That is interpretation and argument based on it. With no evidence. Malachi 2:10, ". . . Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? . . ." Before the incarnation.

 

[timtofly]

That is argument, an interpretation. The Word was before the Word becoming flesh, John 1:1, John 1:14.

That is interpretation and argument based on it. With no evidence. Malachi 2:10, ". . . Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? . . ." Before the incarnation.

There is a difference between adoption and actual begotten, no? Being adopted by the Lord as a father is true. However the OT saints were not redeemed until the act of the Son. The little understood fact that all in sheol were resurrected when the vail was torn. Not just current bodies out of the graves. Jesus freed all those held captive, not just some. They did not die, they were ghosts. They went up to heaven and were placed under the alter. Revelation 6:9

Back in the 70's perhaps earlier, and on we were led to believe bodies would come out of the graves at the Rapture. That may be true, but the souls upon death were immediately with Christ under the alter. The OT saints had to remain in Abraham's bosom until the Day of Atonement. The adoption was only made possible on the cross by the only begotten Son.

 

[Ziggy]

If the -γενης suffix supposedly has nothing to do with being begotten, but only relates to "kind" or "type", what then to say about the NT occurrences of ευγενής (Lk 19:12) and συγγενής (Jn 18:26)?

 

[percho]

Hebrews 5:5
So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”;

Here the "special status" in view is Christ as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedik."

In summary, none of the verses refers to creating God the Son, but rather to the bestowal of "special status" on the Son.

Let's look at that relative to a few scriptures.

Christ did not glorify himself to be made, there is that word begotten you have spoken of G 1096 which 1080 filters from.. However someone did glorify him to be made.. Who, when and with what in order to be, according to the order of.

Rabbit trail, Sorry. Just a thought, we are told that, Thou art my Son this day I have begotten you, ascended to the right hand of the Father.
Question, Are we told from whence he descended?

Back to the above. Accord to, the order of. What order? This? Hebrews 7:14-17 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Had not this man died, this only begotten, Son of the Father, to shard the thought of J3:16 with J1;14. Endless life?
Romans 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Endless life?
Acts 13:33.34 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David Endless life?

2 Tim 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Endless life?

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
1 Peter 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

And himself is the head of the body -- the assembly -- who is a beginning, a first-born out of the dead, that he might become in all things -- himself -- first, Col 1:18
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood, Rev 1:5

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20

From whence would this foreordained, redeemer, Christ come?
And Jehovah God saith, 'Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.' Gen 2:18
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and (a virgin) shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.Matt 1:23
and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come (G1096 again) of a woman, come under law, that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive; Gal 4:4,5




.

 

[37818]

There is a difference between adoption and actual begotten, no?

What? You are making stuff up. Not from the written word of God.

There is evidence God was the Father before creation. The angels were called sons, Job 38:4-7, ". . . all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Jesus says of the Father, John 17:24, ". . . before the foundation of the world. . . ."

 

[timtofly]

What? You are making stuff up. Not from the written word of God.

There is evidence God was the Father before creation. The angels were called sons, Job 38:4-7, ". . . all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Jesus says of the Father, John 17:24, ". . . before the foundation of the world. . . ."

False interpretation. Angels are not sons. The sons of God were the humans, male and female, created on day six. Humanity was supposed to be the sons of God on earth. Adam changed all that by disobeying God a mere 30 years after being placed in the Garden. Because of Adam, one bad fruit spoiled the whole batch of good fruit.

 

[Van]

If the -γενης suffix supposedly has nothing to do with being begotten, but only relates to "kind" or "type", what then to say about the NT occurrences of ευγενής (Lk 19:12) and συγγενής (Jn 18:26)?

In Luke 19:12 the Greek word eugenes appears to mean "good kind" thus a good kind of man is a "nobleman." In John 18:26 the Greek word syggenēs appears to mean "with or connected kind" thus a "relative" or "kinsman." Monogenes can be considered as "unique kind."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. He is the Son who appeared for and so He the Son also being the LORD God in Genesis 12:7 and Isaiah 6:5, according to John 1:18.

I have been rebuked concerning the discussion by C.H. Spurgeon, who says in his commentary on Psalms 2:7, 'The dispute concerning the filiation of our Lord betrays more of presumptuous curiosity than of reverent faith. It is an attempt to explain where it is far better to adore. We could give rival expositions of this verse, but we forbear. The controversy is one of the most unprofitable which ever engaged the pens of theologians.'
And Isaac Watts wrote:
'Almighty God, to Thee
Be endless honours done,
The undivided Three
And the mysterious One.
Where reason fails with all her powers,
There faith prevails and love adores.'

Therefore, just a couple of points and I am finished here.
One definition of a 'son' is that he is begotten; and a definition of a 'father' is that he is someone who has begotten. The translation of monogenes as 'only' or 'one and only' is wrong because it isn't true. The elect angels are described as 'sons of God' in Job 38:7 and of believers it is written, 'For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus' (Galatians 3:26). So The Lord Jesus is a Son in a unique way, and that way is that He was 'begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made' (c.f. John 1:14). If His begetting was in time and not in eternity, in what sense was He the Son in eternity?

Therefore, I am happy to follow the ancient creeds and confessions, not because I can prove them beyond peradventure, but because they seem most honouring to God

 

[Ziggy]

In Luke 19:12 the Greek word eugenes appears to mean "good kind" thus a good kind of man is a "nobleman." In John 18:26 the Greek word syggenēs appears to mean "with or connected kind" thus a "relative" or "kinsman." Monogenes can be considered as "unique kind."

All that seems to be stretching and forcing the point, especially when the leaps from a "good kind" of man to a necessary "nobleman" or from some obscure "connected kind" to a necessary "relative" seem more a matter of begging the question merely to make μονογενης take a particular emphasis.

It is far simpler to understand ευγενής as meaning "well-born" (hence a nobleman), and συγγενής as "together born" (hence a relative), while leaving μόνογενης as "only begotten" as per the creeds.

 

[Yeshua1]

Few things to note. Hebrews 13:8 was not true until Jesus' bodily resurrection when He became the first immortal man. Psalms 2:7 speaks of a day, which can never refer to eternity. In order for there to be a day, it would always have to be a finite event or it would never be. The eternal Son from eternity past was never not the Son. He was never not God. Begotten of the Father before all ages, ts nonsense. The eternal Son is uncaused by reason He has always been with God. God being uncaused, requiring the Son to be uncaused. To be the same as God, to be uncaused the very same God. God is One. Distinct Persons, One and the same God.

Eternally begotten of/by the father means not created in time, that denotes the deity of Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

The word of God no place teaches: Begotten of the Father before all ages. The main Bible verse which explicitly does not teach this is Psalms 2:7.

the Son was eternally begotten by the father, and the Holy Spirit eternally from Father and Son!