The following is a discussion/debate I had in February on Facebook in a group that debates theology. To maintain his anonymity, I'll use his initials in a scrambled order, STW. His comments will be in PURPLE, and mine in BLACK. His initial Original Post will be in blockquotes. What prompted me to finally create this blogpost near the end of April is because I finished reading (in a single day) Robert Martin's book, The Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ [freely online to read and/or download HERE]. I wasn't aware of the book's existence at the time of the debate. I corrected most of my minor typos in the debate.
STW wrote:
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ง ???
[I know this will probably trigger those with pre-commitments to traditional understandings of Christ’s ontology, but my purpose it to engage a Scriptural based discussion with those who think differently. Appeals to Tradition are not relevant to my purpose and will be ignored.]
Here's what Augustine said that actually meant:
"He understood God to be Being itself and he saw the ๐๐๐๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐’๐ฌ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข๐๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฆ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐. He affirmed, though, that the Persons of the Trinity were united in essence. They were all the same substance, though different Persons."
Jonathan Edwards also believed that as well. In fact that is taught in Theology 101 in Seminary.
Note: the Son of God is generated by God's own idea of Himself?
But that's not the same as a figment of God's imagination right?
If you know anything about the 1st Century Jewish philosopher Plotinus you also know that he believed the Greek ""๐๐จ๐ ๐จ๐ฌ" ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ฎ๐ซ๐ ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ "๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ (๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ) ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ง๐. The One being the Supreme God of Greek philosophy. Logos was an intermediary being responsible for creating the material world.
Do you see a pattern there?
There is simply no correlation between the Apostle John's "Word" (logos in Greek) and the pagan philosophical notion of Greek philosophy.
“๐๐จ ๐ฆ๐๐ง ๐ก๐๐ญ๐ก ๐ฌ๐๐๐ง ๐๐จ๐ ๐๐ญ ๐๐ง๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐; ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐จ๐ง๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ง (ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฟฮณฮตฮฝฮท̀ฯ) ๐๐จ๐ง, ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐๐ก ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐จ๐ฆ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ, ๐ก๐ ๐ก๐๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐ก๐ข๐ฆ.” John 1:18.
That word begotten or ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฟฮณฮตฮฝฮท̀ฯ in the Greek means - "pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class — ‘unique, only.’ Louw & Nida
That is 180 degrees opposite of the Greek notion of emanation. In fact there is no evidence that any of the Apostles subscribed to any form of Greek pagan philosophy.
Paul lent the full weight of his Apostolic authority to warn Christians away from a preoccupation with pagan philosophy.
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Col 2:8
We derive the Plurality of Persons in a single ontology and Christ's historical incarnation as what it means to be God from the Apostles witness.
AP: You didn't explain what specifically your views are or what you're defending.
STW: True. I first wanted to exhibit what I view as an untenable neuralgic of parity of description with neoplatonist descriptions of logos/demiurge as an emanation of The One. I solicited feedback from those who feel differently. If you are defending the notion that the Son is generated by God's own idea of himself, are you able to give a Scriptural defense for it?
AP: I'm open to various Trinitarian models. Some include the eternal filiation/generation of the Son [EG, for short] and eternal spirarion/procession of the Holy Spirit [EP]. I can take OR LEAVE those doctrines. For example Molinist William Lane Craig [as well as my favorite all around apologist, the late Calvinist Steve Hays] rejects EG and EP. But my default position which I lean toward are in affirming them.
Some reasons I lean toward affirming them:
- The second person of the Trinity is identified as the Son before His incarnation rather just being considered God's Son merely after incarnation. Prov. 30:4; Gal. 4:4; passim. See for example: Philpot's book:
The True, Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ The Only Begotten Son of God by J.C. Philpot
http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html
- In the scholarly community the tide is now turning back to the traditional understanding that monogenes does have connotations of begettal. See this excerpt from the second edition of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology where he changes his mind based on the evidence:
- The New Testament does seem to speak in terms of derivation either explicitly or implicitly regarding the Son and Spirit [especially if the filioque were true]. For example:
REGARDING the Son: Col. 1:15; John 5:26; 6:56; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 3:14;
REGARDING the Spirit: John 15:26; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; Acts 16:7; Phil. 1:19; 1 Pet. 1:11
- I can also take OR leave the idea of ERAS, but I lean toward it. ERAS refers to Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission in the Trinity sans creation. More popularly discussed in the context of ESS or EFS [Eternal Subordination of the Son, or Eternal Functional Subordination]. I deny the Son and Spirit are ontologically subordinate or inferior to the Father, but the Scriptures do seem to me to teach Functional Subordination. If so, then generation and spiration best makes sense of that. See Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware's defenses of ERAS/ESS/EFS in their books, online articles and even YouTube debate. They argue for it Biblically and historically from church history starting with the early church fathers to classic Protestant theologians. And THAT despite many modern Protestants denying it. Here's a link where Grudem and Ware debate the issue with two other Trinitarian scholars:
Debating Trinitarian Submission
https://youtu.be/ySFrG3mOp5o?si=4ZhAD3NvOInR9QKp
AP: I've corrected the typos in my above comment. You may need to refresh the page to see the corrections. For example, autocorrect changed "begettal" to "Beretta." I changed it back. I also corrected other errors of grammar [etc.] which were my fault.
STW: Does look like a bit of firehosing confirmation bias when you could have simply put forward a statement of those passages that appear that Christ existed as Son before His incarnation so I will only respond to that part of your dissertation.
STW: Thinking further about your post I think your references will be a useful addition for others to consider.
I am responding to your second comment in earnest with citations from language exegetical resources that do not include arguments that contain lengthy traditional advocates.
I haven't addressed every Scripture you cited but most. Some in more detail than others. However these resources give generous language based excursus without invoking "eternal begotten".
John 1:18 “God the only Son is literally “the unique God” or “the only begotten God” (monogenฤs theos; cf. monogenous, “the one and only” in v. 14). John was probably ending his prologue by returning to the truth stated in verse 1 that the Word is God. Verse 18 is another statement affirming Christ’s deity: He is unique, the one and only God. The Son is at the Father’s side, thus revealing the intimacy of the Father and the Son (cf. the Word was “with God,” vv. 1–2). Furthermore, the Son has made … known (exฤgฤsato, whence the Eng. “exegeted”) the Father. The Son is the “exegete” of the Father, and as a result of His work the nature of the invisible Father (cf. 4:24) is displayed in the Son (cf. 6:46).”
Blum, E. A. (1985). John. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 273). Victor Books.
18. ฮผฮฟฮฝ. ฮฮตฯฯ (ืBC1L) for แฝ ฮผฮฟฮฝ. ฯ แผฑแฝธฯ (AX, the secondary uncials, and all cursives except 33). Thus no ancient Greek authority supports แฝ ฮผฮฟฮฝ. ฯ แผฑฮฟฯ, while ฮผฮฟฮฝ. ฮฮตฯฯ is supported by three great types, B, ื, CL. The earliest authorities for แฝ ฮผ.
Plummer, A. (1896). The Gospel according to S. John (p. 61). Cambridge University Press.
Pro 30:4
The question, What is His name? asks what His true character is like. The inquiry, What is the name of His son? suggests the question, “Has He imparted His nature or attributes to any other who may in any sense be called His ‘Son’?” (T. T. Perowne, The Proverbs, p. 180) Tell me if you know reflects Agur’s desire to know the nature of God.
Buzzell, S. S. (1985). Proverbs. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 969). Victor Books.
What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!: Two further rhetorical questions follow the Who? questions. To know a person’s name was the key to knowing the person. It was the proof that the person, whether human or divine, was a real person; see, for example, Gen 32:29 and Exo 3:13. The demand for names puts further emphasis on the point of the four Who? questions, since the speaker expects the answer “no one” to those questions. Surely you know is a sarcastic way of saying, “you don’t know anybody who can do those things.” The word translated Surely may also mean “if”; so niv, for example, renders these words as “Tell me if you know!” tev takes these words with the first of the questions: “Who are they, if you know?” This last part of the verse can be translated as a statement or request, rather than as a question; one translation, for example, says: “If you know a person who can do all this, tell me his name with the names of his children, so that I can know.”
Reyburn, W. D., & Fry, E. M. (2000). A handbook on Proverbs (p. 623). United Bible Societies.
J. I. Packer draws no inferences to Christ here.
“…only God can establish the ends of the earth (Job 38:4–6). The question What is his [and his son’s] name? may make us think of God the Father and Jesus, but that is probably not in the mind of Agur. Rather, it is simply a way of asking the identity of the one who has done all that verse 4 has outlined. In Job 38 similar challenge questions were designed to reorient Job and move him in a new direction. Here Agur is recounting these challenges to explain why he has moved on from his former lack of wisdom (vv. 2–3) to a firm foundation for wisdom and knowledge in God and his words"
Wilson, L. (2017). Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary (D. G. Firth, Ed.; Vol. 17, p. 307). Inter-Varsity Press.
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Oblique reference to the Son, the time of his becoming Son not specified.
Colossians 1:15 Indeterminate of when “the Son” was sent.
the firstborn of every creature] Better perhaps, Firstborn of all creation (Lightfoot and R.V.), or, with a very slight paraphrase, Firstborn over all creation; standing to it in the relation of priority of existence and supremacy of inherited right. So, to borrow a most inadequate analogy, the heir of an hereditary throne might be described as “firstborn to, or over, all the realm.” The word “creature” (from the (late) Latin creatura) here probably, as certainly in Rom. 8, means “creation” as a whole; a meaning to which the Greek word inclines in usage, rather than to that of “a creature” (which latter Ellicott and Alford however adopt). See Lightfoot’s note.
Moule, H. C. G. (1898). The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon with Introduction and Notes (p. 77). Cambridge University Press.
“Some commentators regard 15–17 as descriptive of the Word before the Incarnation, the ฮฯฮณฮฟฯ แผฯฮฑฯฮบฮฟฯ; and 18–20, of the Incarnate Word, ฮฯฮณฮฟฯ แผฮฝฯฮฑฯฮบฮฟฯ. But this is inconsistent with แผฯฯฮนฮฝ, “is,” which shows that St. Paul is speaking of Christ in His present glorified state. Compare 2 Cor. 4:4, ฯแฝธฮฝ ฯฯฯฮนฯฮผแฝธฮฝ ฯฮฟแฟฆ ฮตแฝฮฑฮณฮณฮตฮปฮฏฮฟฯ ฯแฟฯ ฮดฯฮพฮทฯ ฯฮฟแฟฆ ฮงฯฮนฯฯฮฟแฟฆ, แฝ ฯ แผฯฯฮนฮฝ ฮตแผฐฮบแฝผฮฝ ฯฮฟแฟฆ ฮฮตฮฟแฟฆ. The exalted Christ is now and continues to be what He was in His own nature as the Word before He became incarnate, John 17:5”
Abbott, T. K. (1909). A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (pp. 209–210). C. Scribner’s sons.
“In this section, Paul explained the fourfold relationship of Jesus Christ to Creation.
He existed before Creation (v. 15). The term firstborn does not refer to time, but to place or status. Jesus Christ was not the first being created, since He Himself is the Creator of all things. Firstborn simply means “of first importance, of first rank.” Solomon was certainly not born first of all of David’s sons, yet he was named the firstborn (Ps. 89:27). Firstborn of all Creation means “prior to all Creation.” Jesus Christ is not a created being; He is eternal God.
Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (Vol. 2, pp. 115–116). Victor Books.
John 5:26; 6:56
“For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.”
This is in the Son of man context and therefore a reference after incarnation.
John 6:56
“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."
Indeterminate but fits clearly in the frame of incarnational reference.
Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten (ฯฯฯฯฮฟ́ฯฮฟฮบฮฟฮฝ) into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”
Already shown that ฯฯฯฯฮฟ́ฯฮฟฮบฮฟฮฝ does not mean begotten and is a reference to Christ’s first place in every category of reference.
AP: PART 1. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that every passage I cited proves my point. They are at the very least suggestive. My point was that there's a general and reoccurring theme or motif of derivation, or Sonship, or submission in the Scriptures that would best be explained by something like the concepts of eternal generation & procession of the Son and Spirit. As I said, I'm not wedded to the doctrines. I can take OR LEAVE them. Also there are numerous book[s] that defend the pre-incarnate Sonship of Christ from Scripture. I didn't really defend those passages because they have been defended numerous times by many proponents of EG. And if EG is true, then that opens the door to EP.
Above I already linked to Philpot's freely online book. Here's a work by famous theologian and bible commentator John Gill that's also freely online:
A Dissertation Concerning the Eternal Sonship of Christ
Interestingly you mentioned a few authors who argue for an interpretation of a specific passage who themselves do or likely do affirm EG and EP. For example, the late J.I. Packer probably believed in EG/EP. I'm not aware of Packer denying it, and as a good Anglican, Packer would have accepted the Nicene Creed [i.e. the revised Niceno-Constantinopolitan version] as well as the Athanasian Creed which teach EG/EP.
You mentioned Dispensationalist John Walvoord and Roy Zuck who also likely taught EG/EP. George W. Zeller I believe is a Dispensationalist who runs in their circles, and Zeller wrote the book "The Eternal Sonship of Christ." Renald Showers is either a co-author or wrote the preface or introduction to the book. I know FOR SURE Renald Showers is an ARDENT defender of Dispensationalism and is often mentioned with the likes of Walvoord and Zuck. I read Zeller's book when I was still a Dispensationalist myself around 25 years ago. I'm no longer a Dispensationalist.
//I am responding to your second comment in earnest with citations from language exegetical resources that do not include arguments that contain lengthy traditional advocates. //
In other words you don't interact with the accumulating recent evidence that has some scholars concluding that the word "monogenes" does have connotations of begettal etymologically by its and related words use in other literature surrounding the time of the first century.
//I haven't addressed every Scripture you cited but most. //
I don't expect you to. Because I gave reasons why I MYSELF lean toward EG & EP. Of course, by not addressing them all, you can pick and choose the least troublesome passages for your position to address and leave out the most problematic ones.
// Furthermore, the Son has made … known (exฤgฤsato, whence the Eng. “exegeted”) the Father. The Son is the “exegete” of the Father, and as a result of His work the nature of the invisible Father (cf. 4:24) is displayed in the Son (cf. 6:46).”//
Agreed.
Regarding Prov. 30:4, I grant that it's cryptic and uncertain. But it is suggestive.
See these commentaries on the verse and its suggestive nature:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/30-4.htm
//“…only God can establish the ends of the earth (Job 38:4–6). The question What is his [and his son’s] name? may make us think of God the Father and Jesus, but that is probably not in the mind of Agur.//
That's possible. But even if it wasn't in Agur’s mind as per the Sensus Literalis whereby we discern the human authorial intent of the passage using the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, we must also consider the Sensus Plenior which is God's deeper intended meaning of the passage which can go beyond the human author's knowledge and intent. A meaning that takes into account all of the canon of Scripture past, present and [yet to be written] future.
So even if some of the interpretations you gave of Prov 30:4 are true AS FAR AS THEY GO, there can be the deeper meaning. In which case the passage might be saying something like: "What is His name [i.e. nature and character of this ineffable being], and what is His Son's name [i.e. nature and character of this person who is ALSO SO TRANSCENDENT as to be ineffable]?" The implied meaning being that just as you cannot exhaustively comprehend the name/nature/attributes of God, so neither can you that of His equally divine Son. And I didn't even mention Proverbs 8:22ff. which has classically been used by BOTH Trinitarians and Arians/Semi-Arians to refer to the derivation of the Son ante-incarnationally.
CONT. BELOW
AP: PART 2. //Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Oblique reference to the Son, the time of his becoming Son not specified. //
According to some who know Koine, the grammar implies Sonship before being sent [i.e. incarnated].
Regarding Col. 1:15, I've believed for decades your interpretation. Firstborn doesn't mean first created. But rather all that you wrote and more. I cited it with respect to Christ being the "IMAGE" of God and therefore gives the connotation of derivation.
Regarding John 5:26; 6:57 I agree that it could merely be referring to post-incarnational conditions. But historically many theologians in the past have interpreted it to allude to the intra-Trinitarian dependence of the Son on the Father not merely in the economic Trinity [given creation and redemption] but also the immanent/ontological Trinity [sans creation & redemption].
//This is in the Son of man context and therefore a reference after incarnation. //
In Hebrew the phrase "son of man" meant merely "human being." It's used of Ezekiel repeatedly. But it took on a new meaning due to Dan. 7:13ff. Where this "Son of Man" is man-like in one sense given the phrase itself, but was at the same time divine-like given that He rides the clouds [a prerogative only of deities in the Semitic Ancient Near East]. So, just because the phrase is used in John 5:27, v. 26 isn't necessarily and obviously limited to the incarnation. Though it well might. DID NOT JESUS HAVE "LIFE IN HIMSELF" PRIOR TO THE INCARNATION as the 2nd person of the Trinity? Then why would He need to be given it at the incarnation? So, a [more?] plausible interpretation is that He was given this life by the Father sans creation from all eternity outside of time. Again, cf. Prov. 8:22ff.
//Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten (ฯฯฯฯฮฟ́ฯฮฟฮบฮฟฮฝ) into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”
Already shown that ฯฯฯฯฮฟ́ฯฮฟฮบฮฟฮฝ does not mean begotten and is a reference to Christ’s first place in every category of reference.//
I didn't mention Heb. 1:6, but Heb. 1:3 for the purpose of citing another passage suggesting derivation when it refers to the Son being "the RADIANCE of His Glory." Which has connotations with God's Shekinah glory. Some of the church fathers used the analogy of a hypothetical sun that has always existed and so has always been emanating glory, light and heat.
Another indication of derivation is Jesus being the eternal WORD of God who was with God [the Father] in the beginning [John 1:1]. Words are derivative. There is a speaker who speaks words that EMANATE FROM the speaker. Scripture uses that non-literal imagery of speaker/words of the Father and Son for a reason. To convey derivation. Admittedly, the word "logos" [meaning reason/word] already had a meaning in Platonic thought and was even co-opted by Philo the Jew. Whether the author of John was also alluding to that tradition isn't clear. But he was almost certainly alluding to the very popular Aramaic Targums that ante-date the New Testament which personified God's word [memra in Aramaic, debar in Hebrew] as if a person distinct from God. See this very interesting article that collects excerpts from the Targums:
Word of the Lord in the Targums
Http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
This was done probably because of passages in the Old Testament where the word of God is also likened as a person sent from God. As the "word of Yahweh came to Abram in a *VISION*" (Gen. 15:1) and as Yahweh **STOOD** before the boy Samuel [1 Sam. 3:10], it was probably the Word of Yahweh standing [as mentioned earlier and later in the chapter].
And Yahweh APPEARED again at Shiloh, for Yahweh REVEALED himself to Samuel at Shiloh **BY THE WORD** of Yahweh.
— 1 Samuel 3:21
Examples could be multiplied. In a related way, Jesus is probably the Angel/Messenger of the LORD/Yahweh. Being sent suggests submission, and intra-Trinitarian submission is best explained by derivation if it's sans creation [i.e. ERAS].
STW: Citing dispensational connections from authors I've cited is diversionary and looks triggered.
The "derived" passages are equally operative as functioning post incarnation if not more so as Christ said that he came to bear witness to the truth. Since they work equally well in either position then they prove neither.
You may believe in "eternal generation" or give a qualified statement about it but it is clear that you are advocating for it or conversely trying to deconstruct my position that there is no clear grounding from Apostolic teaching that entails "eternal generation" accompanied by the specificity that would convey such concepts to a 1st Century audience.
You haven't achieved an actionable argument, external citations notwithstanding.
Thanks for interacting but there is nothing further to respond to.
AP: I cited the Dispensational connections because Zeller, who wrote a defense of the eternal sonship of Christ, is likely a Dispensationalist too since his co-author of the book is well known for being an ardent defender of Dispensationalism on par with Walvoord and Zuck. The point being some of the authors you cited to undermine derivation in a particular passage, probably believe in EG/EP themselves.
You say the derived passages are equally operative for pre or post incarnational conditions. That's patently false. I gave examples that ante-date the incarnation. Jesus as the Word ante-dates the incarnation. And "word" connotes derivation and emanation. Words emanate from speakers. Proverbs 8:22 describes something that ante-dates the incarnation. I asked whether Jesus had "life in himself" prior to the incarnation, and if so, why would He need to be given it at the incarnation. Suggesting that therefore as plausible, if not more plausible this giving by the Father predates the incarnation. I pointed how "radiance" in Heb. 1:3 connotes emanation associated with Old Testament concept of the presence of God.
Also, I pointed out that your references to the meaning of monogenes is challenged by the most recent discoveries. Discoveries so weighty that Wayne Grudem, one of the top leaders of the translation of the best selling and respected ESV Bible, is going to recommend changing the ESV to reflect those discoveries so as to return to the traditional translation of "only begotten."
STW: As I said, you haven't given a preponderance of evidence that clear defines "generation." There's no challenge in positive associations of those who you think may assert your view. It is well know that many language scholars are so consistent in their field that their commitment to accuracy out weighed their theological commitments. Joseph Thayer for instance was a universalist and towards the end of his life stated that he believed the Bible has errors, however his work is widely for its accuracy.
That there is not uniformity of agreement on the meaning of monogenes is not proof for your view. So all you are doing is serving up a bevy of "could be's" of reasons for you view. That's not the same as demonstration according to the preponderance of evidence.
To a first century audience, especially in the Jewish mindset having a one and only son, harkens back to Israel's own status as God's firstborn has a much different meaning than the neoplatonist abstraction of eternal generation. Monogenes is clearly in the same semantic domain as it is translated "only son" or "daughter" (Lk 7:12, 8:42, 9:38) as it is in Heb 11:17:
"Abraham offered up his only begotten (ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฟฮณฮตฮฝฮท͂) [son]"
Repeated usage in the NT to refer to human offspring demonstrates consistency of its meaning in the ordinary sense.
AP: I could choose to argue my case further, but it was really only my purpose in my original post to give reasons why I and others [at the very least if not more] lean toward EG. In order to give other people places to start to explore the reasons why EG & EP make some sense. But I'm not really interested in making a greater argument. It's enough that I've given some pointers for those interested to pursue further.
I'll just leave this excerpt from the link I gave which took from Grudem's 2nd edition Systematic Theology.
//“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)...//
AP: For those interested, here's a link to one of my blogs where I linked to many other online articles arguing for monogenes having the meaning of "only begotten":
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-case-for-monogenes-meaning-only.html?m=1
STW: I have no problem with you giving reasons why you “lean” towards EG.
However, knowing the deep penchant of those who hold traditional understandings of God to go to extreme lengths to argue for the perpetuation of those views without adding substantially to their persuasiveness I imagine others can decide for themselves.
None of the contributors here have been able to put forward lexical or grammatical arguments that would be viewed anymore compelling to first century readers who lived up stream of post-apostolic syncretizers.
AP: More evidence of a Biblical Motif or Theme of something like emanation or generation
## Micah 5:2 LSB
[2] “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will GO FORTH for Me to be ruler in Israel. HIS **GOINGS FORTH** ARE FROM EVERLASTING, From the ancient days.”
Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of Christ and it talks about TWO kinds of His "going forth." One corresponds to temporal and incarnational Sonship of the Davidic king who were called "sons" of God like David was. He would be "ruler of Israel" as the text says. The second "goings forth" ante-dates the incarnation and is from everlasting. Notice the first "going forth" is in the context of GENERATION from the clans of Judah. So it stands to reason, or at least it's plausible that the second "going forth" is also generational/begettal given Jewish penchant for Hebrew parallelism.
When read in light of Micah 5:2, Jesus' repeated statements of being SENT by the Father or COMING FORTH from the Father more naturally connotes generation. Especially since it's from the FATHER. For example:
John 16:27-28 LSB
[27] for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I CAME FORTH FROM THE FATHER. [28] I CAME FORTH FROM THE FATHER AND HAVE COME INTO THE WORLD; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”
[[ This is a comment after the debate. If the FATHER sent prior to the incarnation, then it stands to reason the Father was a FATHER before the incarnation. In which case the Son was a SON before the incarnation as well.]]
Notice how verse 28 strongly suggests His coming from the Father is sans or before incarnation [cf. 8:42].
This makes my preferred interpretation of Gal. 4:4 more plausible. That God sent forth His Son before the Incarnation.
## Daniel 2:34 LSB
[34] You continued looking until A STONE WAS CUT OUT WITHOUT HANDS, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them.
God is often called the Rock in the Old Testament. Here, Christ [and His Kingdom He heads and represents] is likened to a stone cut out of a bigger stone "without hands" [i.e. something divine and miraculous is being described here]. The verse connotes something like generation or emanation or *derivation* in that the stone sent into the world to destroy the pagan kingdoms was DERIVED from the original stone.
## Arm of the LORD/Yahweh [Isa. 51:9; 53:1; 40:10; 51:5; 52:10; 62:8; 63:5 John 12:38]
Isaiah 51:9 LSB
[9] ¶Awake, awake, put on strength, O ***ARM*** of Yahweh; Awake as in the DAYS OF OLD, the generations OF LONG AGO. Was it not You who chopped Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the dragon?
Christ is prophetically called the "Arm of the LORD/Yahweh" as if He were an *EXTENSION* of the Father. This is in keeping with the generation or emanation motif. God ***STRETCHES** out His HAND [Isa. 5:25; 14:27; 23:11; 31:3; Jer. 6:12; 15:6; 51:25 passim]
AFAIR [As Far As I Know], You didn't address Heb. 1:3 which speaks of Christ as the "radiance" or apaugasma. Which a lexicon defines as "of light beaming from a luminous body, radiance, effulgence."
Nor addressed Christ as the Word of God before incarnation. Genesis 3:8 can be translated as "... they heard the VOICE of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day..." Which is the pre-incarnate Christ as the Word of God. Nor addressed the likely Johannine allusion to the Targumim:
http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
Nor addressed Prov. 8:22-23.
“Yahweh POSSESSED me at the beginning of His way,
Before His deeds of old.
From everlasting I WAS INSTALLED,
FROM THE BEGINNING, from the earliest times of the earth.
When there were no depths ***I WAS BROUGHT FORTH***,
When there were no springs heavy with water.
— Proverbs 8:22-24
[[At this point STW stopped contributing to the discussion. I suspect because he was overwhelmed by the evidences and arguments I posted. But I posted again to press him on answering my arguments.]]
AP: Don't you think some of the passages I mentioned above meet the criteria of generation? Especially Micah 5:2? I'm posting the comment again below:
## Micah 5:2 LSB
[2] “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will GO FORTH for Me to be ruler in Israel. HIS **GOINGS FORTH** ARE FROM EVERLASTING, From the ancient days.”
Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of Christ and it talks about TWO kinds of His "going forth." One corresponds to temporal and incarnational Sonship of the Davidic king who were called "sons" of God like David was. He would be "ruler of Israel" as the text says. The second "goings forth" ante-dates the incarnation and is from everlasting. Notice the first "going forth" is in the context of GENERATION from the clans of Judah. So it stands to reason, or at least it's plausible that the second "going forth" is also generational/begettal given Jewish penchant for Hebrew parallelism.
When read in light of Micah 5:2, Jesus' repeated statements of being SENT by the Father or COMING FORTH from the Father more naturally connotes generation. Especially since it's from the FATHER. For example:
John 16:27-28 LSB
[27] for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I CAME FORTH FROM THE FATHER. [28] I CAME FORTH FROM THE FATHER AND HAVE COME INTO THE WORLD; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”
Notice how verse 28 strongly suggests His coming from the Father is sans or before incarnation [cf. 8:42].
This makes my preferred interpretation of Gal. 4:4 more plausible. That God sent forth His Son before the Incarnation.
## Daniel 2:34 LSB
[34] You continued looking until A STONE WAS CUT OUT WITHOUT HANDS, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them.
God is often called the Rock in the Old Testament. Here, Christ [and His Kingdom He heads and represents] is likened to a stone cut out of a bigger stone "without hands" [i.e. something divine and miraculous is being described here]. The verse connotes something like generation or emanation or *derivation* in that the stone sent into the world to destroy the pagan kingdoms was DERIVED from the original stone.
## Arm of the LORD/Yahweh [Isa. 51:9; 53:1; 40:10; 51:5; 52:10; 62:8; 63:5 John 12:38]
Isaiah 51:9 LSB
[9] ¶Awake, awake, put on strength, O ***ARM*** of Yahweh; Awake as in the DAYS OF OLD, the generations OF LONG AGO. Was it not You who chopped Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the dragon?
Christ is prophetically called the "Arm of the LORD/Yahweh" as if He were an *EXTENSION* of the Father. This is in keeping with the generation or emanation motif. God ***STRETCHES** out His HAND [Isa. 5:25; 14:27; 23:11; 31:3; Jer. 6:12; 15:6; 51:25 passim]
AFAIR, You didn't address Heb. 1:3 which speaks of Christ as the "radiance" or apaugasma. Which a lexicon defines as "of light beaming from a luminous body, radiance, effulgence."
Nor addressed Christ as the Word of God before incarnation. Genesis 3:8 can be translated as "... they heard the VOICE of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day..." Which is the pre-incarnate Christ as the Word of God. Nor addressed the likely Johannine allusion to the Targumim:
http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
Nor addressed Prov. 8:22-23.
“Yahweh POSSESSED me at the beginning of His way,
Before His deeds of old.
From everlasting I WAS INSTALLED,
FROM THE BEGINNING, from the earliest times of the earth.
When there were no depths ***I WAS BROUGHT FORTH***,
When there were no springs heavy with water.
— Proverbs 8:22-24
