John 1:18 the only begotten Son

[Gwyneth]

In the topic "versions??" I asked which version should I be reading you replied as follows:-

Member # 979

posted November 30, 2002 05:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You should read one that you understand ... because God wrote it to communicate how we should live."
I thought I understood the KJV,
I tend not to dig into the words, and just read and believe what the Bible says . I do not have a knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, so am I being mislead in believing what I am reading. I read begotten as being born of woman.There must be a lot of people , like me, who do not have a knowledge of the original language that the Bible was written in, believing the word begotten to mean born of woman. If it means something else, then why is the other meaning not written in the Bible in the version I read (KJV) for less learned folk like myself to get the right message? This is very misleading... what else should I look out for?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I would say that "begotten" has a theological meaning which is fine if you know what that is. It is more simple to have a common language translation, with notes, that explains it. That is why I favor the NIV for reading, though I preach from the NASB.

To argue that "begotten" means born of a woman is true; to argue that it distinguishes Christ from us is incorrect no matter whether it is correct or not. We are all born of a woman, save Adam. To this end, I would say that people as a whole need to taught to think theologically and to make necessary distinctions. I am constantly teaching my people to do that because it is so vital. Too many people hear something that sounds good and then parrot it without checking it out. I say that not to condemn you but rather to encourage you to keep studying and reading to learn. We must all do it, no matter what level we are at.

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Several points of easy refutation.

1. The difference between Son and God is a textual variant, and the weight of the evidence falls towards the reading God.

2. The KJV is weaker on teh deity of Christ in this verse because hte KJV calls him Son where the MVs call him God (which in fact he is). Therefore, this verse could be used to undermine the deity of Christ if you use the KJV. Only in the MVs is the deity of Christ underscored. There is no hint of two Gods. John 1:1-18 is making it clear that the Word was God.

3. The word monogenes means unique or only and it is translated that way everywhere it is used, except in reference to Christ. Christ is the unique Son of God. He was not begotten, he is eternal. He has never come into existence as begotten would imply; he has always been in existence.

The MVs most certainly are more clear on the deity of Christ and his eternality.

Superb. Good to see you back around Larry!

 

[TomVols]

That is why I favor the NIV for reading, though I preach from the NASB.

If you'd just use the ESV, you'd make life much easier for yourself

 

[jimslade]

Will; I'm afraid that if you don't shorten your posts you may get carpel tunnel syndrom.
I dont have to worry about that I'm a hunt and peck typist.I thought I would check in, and I see that the KJO are still chasing their tails. I still love you Guys.

Yours in Christ

Jim

[ December 11, 2002, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: jimslade ]

 

[Refreshed]

Originally posted by Pastork:
The reason they began including the monogenes language in the creeds is that it was being misunderstood (by Arians,e.g.) and they wished to make clear in their creeds what misunderstanding was to be avoided. They were not sure what "begotten" or "eternally begotten" meant.

They didn't know what begotten meant? Why would they have put it in a creed then, just to prove the opposite, as you say? How do you know they didn't know this? Just curious.

Thanks,

Jason

 

[Refreshed]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Several points of easy refutation.

1. The difference between Son and God is a textual variant, and the weight of the evidence falls towards the reading God.

Is the weight in numbers, or is it due to age? What is the evidence for Son being used over God in this passage?

2. The KJV is weaker on teh deity of Christ in this verse because hte KJV calls him Son where the MVs call him God (which in fact he is). Therefore, this verse could be used to undermine the deity of Christ if you use the KJV. Only in the MVs is the deity of Christ underscored. There is no hint of two Gods. John 1:1-18 is making it clear that the Word was God.

It seems you are being a bit facetious here, or are you? There are lots of places to prove that Jesus is the Son of God (presumably in the new versions as well), just as there are lots of places that affirm the trinity other than 1 John 5:7.

3. The word monogenes means unique or only and it is translated that way everywhere it is used, except in reference to Christ. Christ is the unique Son of God. He was not begotten, he is eternal. He has never come into existence as begotten would imply; he has always been in existence.

The MVs most certainly are more clear on the deity of Christ and his eternality.

Begotten cannot mean born from in the context of John 1:18 according to the NASB because then the NASB would be saying that God was born. Correct? Does this mean that the NASB is incorrect in this instance?

Thanks,

Jason

 

[Pastork]

Refreshed,

The assessment I have given you above is common amongst those familiar with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the early Church. It must be kept in mind that they were convinced based upon the Biblical teaching that Christ exists eternally as the Son in relation to the Father (see,e.g., Rom.8:29). Thus, if they saw the term 'begotten' as descriptive of this relationship, then Jesus must have been "eternally begotten." But what this meant they could not say. I will quote one of my favorite theologians on the subject, Wayne Grudem.

"As for the texts that say that Christ was God's 'only begotten Son,' the early church felt so strongly the force of many other texts showing that Christ was fully and completely God, that it concluded that, whatever 'only begotten' meant, it did not mean 'created.' Therefore the Nicene Creed in 325 affirmed that Christ was 'begotten, not made': "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance ...with the Father...." This same phrase was reaffirmed at the Council of Constantinople in 381. In addition, the phrase 'before all ages' was added after 'begotten of the Father,' to show that this 'begetting' was eternal. It never began to happen, but is something that has been eternally true of the relationship between the Father and the Son. However, the nature of that 'begetting' has never been defined very clearly, other than to say that it has to do with the relationship between the Father and the Son, and that in some sense the Father has eternally had a primacy in that relationship" ( Systematic Theology, p.244). [Note: By "primacy" it is not meant that Christ was not fully equal with the Father, only that He eternally fulfils a certain role in relationship to the Father.]

Hopefully this helps to put things in a little better perspective and explain why the language in the older creeds is what it is. It would be fallacious to try to make their words conform to some modern debate we are having. I am convinced by the same arguments which have been put forth in earlier posts by Pastor Larry that the early fathers misunderstood the meaning of the term monogenes. However, they did the best they could to stay true to what they thought it meant and to avoid heresy. For this we all owe them a debt of gratitude.

Pastork

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Refreshed:
Is the weight in numbers, or is it due to age? What is the evidence for Son being used over God in this passage?

"God" is found in p66 (2nd century) and p75 (3rd cent.), Aleph (Sinaiticus 4th cent.), B (Vaticanus, 4th), C (5th), the Peshitta (5th and "the word of God" even according to KJV-onlyists), several early church father quotes, and several later manuscripts and translations. "son" is found in A (Alexandrinus 5th), a few old translations, a couple dozen later Greek manuscripts (9th century is the earliest, I think), and several early church fathers and translations. There are even a couple witnesses that have both words.

It seems you are being a bit facetious here, or are you? There are lots of places to prove that Jesus is the Son of God (presumably in the new versions as well), just as there are lots of places that affirm the trinity other than 1 John 5:7.

I don't think Pastory Larry was being facetious at all. How many times have we heard KJV-onlyists harp on 1 Tim 3:16, slamming other versions for not saying "God"? Other versions are touted as "removing the deity of Christ!", but when the same thing happens in the KJV, it just gets shrugged off? I think Pastor Larry was simply trying to tactfully point out a hypocritical double standard. I am usually not as tactful.

Suppose the situation were reversed: suppose the KJV has "only begotten God" here, and the NASB had "only begotten Son". You could bet your last nickle that KJV-onlyists would be trumpeting it from the rooftops, claiming the NASB was removing Christ's deity.

Begotten cannot mean born from in the context of John 1:18 according to the NASB because then the NASB would be saying that God was born. Correct? Does this mean that the NASB is incorrect in this instance?

Do you think Jesus is God? Yes. Do you think Jesus was begotten? Yes. What's the problem?

[ December 11, 2002, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

[Refreshed]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Do you think Jesus is God? Yes. Do you think Jesus was begotten? Yes. What's the problem?

The problem is that Larry is trying to argue that the greek word, "monogenes" does not mean "begotten," but instead means unique. It is his point, I believe, that begotten cannot be faithfully applied to Jesus as he was never a creation.