Response to Two Unitarian Articles on John 8:58

 

This blog is my Trinitarian response to two Unitarian blogs/articles on the topic of John 8:58 that was recommended to me by a Unitarian on Facebook. I'll post the first half on Facebook what I've posted here. But this blog version will have minor edits and grammatical corrections (etc.) as I discover them. The two Unitarian blogs are:

‘Before Abraham was, I’…what, exactly? (posted 2016)

John 8:58 – An Alternative Approach to Its Role in the Debate Over Christ’s Identity (posted 2020)

The following is my Trinitarian Response:

I did a running commentary starting with the 2016 blog, then continuing with the 2020 blog.

I  have to say I REALLY enjoyed those two articles. Truly fun reads. Both were well written and thoroughly ENGAGING. As well as informative with respect to what some Unitarians think and how they reason. However, I think they both clearly fail to address things which make the traditional interpretation more likely.

This begins my running commentary on the FIRST blog:

With respect to your 2016 article titled, "‘Before Abraham was, I’…what, exactly?"

Since my Greek is rudimentary, I grant that McKay's translation is might be correct. Especially in isolation from the rest of GJohn.

But I still think the traditional interpretation of "I AM" makes most sense:

1. GIVEN what White has written in his article. Here's the link again: 

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/purpose-and-meaning-of-ego-eimi-in-the-gospel-of-john/

2. GIVEN everything else the rest of the Johannine corpus says about the Word/Jesus [e.g. John 1:1ff; 5:18; 10:30; 17:5; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 2:23; 3:14; 5:13-14; 17:14; 19:16; 22:12-13] 

3. GIVEN that there are other times they tried to kill Jesus in GJohn and more than once it was because they interpreted Him to be claiming to be God or equal to God [John 5:18; John 10:33; John 19:7] . McKay's interpretation/translation would be an unusual exception that doesn't conform to those other times under similar circumstances. Admittedly, there are other times when GJohn says the Jewish leaders wanted Him dead and either don't explain the reason why, or give a different reason. But when it's in CONJUNCTION to something that could be construed as a claim to deity, that IS the reason why according to the Jews themselves. And so, interpreting John 8:58 as a veiled claim to be "I AM" fits better with that PATTERN, than that He's a prophet or "God’s living, breathing power of attorney" (as you put it) who's telling a "preposterous lie."

4. I even think it's possible that a COMBINATION of both McKay's and the traditional interpretation could be true. At the spur of the moment some (or all) of the Jews could have interpreted Jesus to mean what McKay's translation says; but that Jesus and the author of GJohn intended/meant for later hearers and eventual readers of the story (who knew more of the complete life of Jesus, could stand back and could reflect more deeply on His life and sayings) to understand the deeper meaning was a claim to be Yahweh. This is especially true considering the other points in this list. Jesus and/or the author of GJohn could have been intentionally ambiguous so that both senses could and would be interpreted and translated, while expecting the deeper meaning would be caught by careful study and reflection. It's common for Jesus and the Bible in general to have layered and multivalent intended meanings. And different methods are used to do this. Sometimes in idioms, in puns, in figures of speech, in the meaning of names etc.

5. McKay's translation of the beginning of John 8:58 as "The truth is" is unfortunate. The repetition of "Truly, Truly" ("Verily, verily" in the KJV) is intentional on Jesus' part. It's His way of indicating a very solemn statement is about to be made. Translating it as "The truth is..." makes His statement more trivial and detracts from the intended seriousness of His statement. One that (IMO) better fits with Him saying "I AM."

//While that may be true generally speaking, offering such as a response to McKay’s argument is really rather silly. Jesus’ opponents wanted to stone him, not because a claim to be old was blasphemous, but because his claim to have been in existence since before Abraham was born could only have been viewed as a preposterous lie by them,//

If Enoch arrived, he could rightly say he ante-dated Abraham. If Jesus was merely claiming to be older than Abraham, they could have considered him crazy, and left Him alone; or considered Him a false prophet and stoned Him. They would have known about Jesus' childhood. They even insinuated that He was conceived under scandalous circumstances (John 8:41). So Jesus couldn't claim to come straight down from heaven. The Jewish leaders reacting irrationally and wanting to kill Him for no good reason is a possible scenario. However, a more reasonable reaction would have been to ask Him for clarification on what He meant. The fact that they understood Him to possibly be making a veiled claim to deity earlier in the Gospel (John 5:18) makes the traditional interpretation of "I AM" more likely. I mean, the very first verse of the book begins NOT with Yahweh at/in "the beginning" (harkening back to Gen. 1:1), but with the Word. It literally says, "In the beginning was the WORD." Not, "In the beginning was God and with Him was His Word." The fact that the "Word" is first mentioned (before even God [i.e. the Father]) makes sense if the author is trying to convey the full and true Deity of the Word on par with YHWH. 

For more on why this IS an allusion to the opening verses of Genesis, see this excerpt of Robert Bowman I typed up here:

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-trinity-at-beginning-of-creation.html

Some Unitarians have denied a connection between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. Robert M. Bowman gave 5 reasons why such a connection makes sense.

//1. The words en arche occur at the beginning of each book; 

2. The name God (ho theos) occurs in the opening sentence in each book, and frequently thereafter as well; 

3. Both passages speak about the creation of all things; 

4. The name given to the preexistent Christ, "the Word," reminds us of the frequent statement in Genesis, "And God said, 'Let there be...'"—that is, in Genesis God creates by speaking the word, in John he creates through the person of the Word; 

5. Both passages in Greek use the words egeneto ("came into existence"), phos ("light") and skotos or skotia ("darkness"), and both contrast light and darkness. 

These point of similarity taken together constitute a powerful cumulative case for understanding en arche to be referring to the same beginning in John 1:1 as that of Genesis 1:1—the beginning of time itself. //

// “I am God’s name-bearing agent”//

Given my comprehensive theology of the Malak/Angel/Messenger of YHWH, I think that's a description of a divine figure. 

Exo. 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.

If this angel had no power to forgive sins, there'd be no point in saying "he will not pardon your sin." YHWH saying His Name is IN this angel implies the divinity of the a/Angel. There are other reasons to think the Angel is divine. See Rogers articles and debates. But specifically in the context of the Name, names in Semitic cultures was very important. They were connected to the actual or hoped for nature of the person named. This was why naming babies were so important. Because Semitic names have meaning. The Name of God refers to the character, nature, attributes and predictable wonted behavior of YHWH.

Prov. 18:10 The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.

Psa. 9:10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.

These passages are not saying the NAME of YHWH is a place one can literally enter. Rather, it saying that God's nature and character is such that you can rely on Him.

Prov. 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!

Literally asking what's God's name was was simple for a Jew to answer. It's obviously "YHWH." But it's not ultimately and literally asking that. It's cryptically asking, "What is God's nature?" The answer to that rhetorical question is that it is incomprehensible.  The secondary question of "what is His s/Son's name?" hints at the Son's incomprehensibility as well, because both are divine. Being YHWH's agent with His name residing within is therefore a way of saying He's divine. Inanimate objects and cities were named for YHWH. Many OT names are theophoric and have YHWH's name in them. For example, Yirme-𝘆𝗮𝗵𝘂 (Jeremiah), 𝗬𝗲𝗵𝗼-natan (Jonathan). Jerusalem will be called Yahweh Tsidkenu (Jer. 33:16) [cf. where I think Jesus is prophetically named the same in Jer. 23:6]. The way YHWH's name is IN the Angel in a special and unique way, and how he is described throughout the OT clearly suggests divinity and ontology on par with YHWH. Again, see Rogers' materials. His debates on numerous YouTube channels, and his own channel. Also his articles here:

https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers.html

---

---

This begins my running commentary on the SECOND blog:

With respect to your second blog which was a Guest Post by a friend of your who goes by the online handle/nickname HeKS. My comments here should be read in light of what I said about the first blog. They build on those former comments.

//After a lengthy discussion with Jesus, the Jewish religious leaders suddenly decide in John 8:59 to kill Jesus by stoning him. //

That's a strawman. It's not "all of a sudden." It occured previously in 5:18 when they thought Jesus was claiming to be equal with God. It happens again later in 10:33 and (I would argue in) 19:7. John 8:58 would be just one of a number of instances when the Jews wanted Him dead because He ostensibly claimed to be Deity or equal with Deity.

//The only thing it could possibly be was his use of ego eimi (I am). //

In all three Gospels that record Jesus walking on water, Jesus uses "ego eimi" with divine connotations (Mark 6:50, Matt. 14:27 & John 6:20). When He walked on the sea it's clearly meant to be understood as a theophany for a number of reasons. The coincidences are WAYYYYYY too many. See my blog, "Brant Pitre on the Divinity of Jesus Revealed When He Walked On Water"

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2021/05/brant-pitre-on-divinity-of-jesus.html

//The notion that the Jewish religious leaders suddenly decided to kill Jesus in John 8:59 because of his comment in the prior verse can be dispensed with quickly. After all, it is explicitly contradicted multiple times in the text.//

Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm typing up this response as I'm reading this Unitarian blog. So, I'm glad that the author acknowledges that the Jews were wanting Him dead prior. But why he strawman's the Trinitarian argument instead of steelmanning it is unfortunate. That some Trinitarians think they JUST THEN suddenly wanted to kill Jesus, doesn't mean that all Trinitarians argue that way. Rather than attacking the weaker versions ("weak-manning" so to speak), he should have steelmanned it before critiquing it.

//The desire of the Jewish religious leaders to kill Jesus long predated his discussion with them in John 8.//

HeKS also cites GMark where the religious leaders wanted to kill Jesus. That's fine. But, so far, as I'm reading this blog, there's no acknowledgement of the PATTERNED THEME of (specifically) GJohn of them wanting to kill Jesus when He make apparently veiled divine claims. Sufficiently clear enough that they think they know He is claiming deity, but sufficiently vague that they aren't absolutely certain. Jesus even uses dissembling and prevarication (in a sinless way) to be subtle with His claims to deity (see my blog here: https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/god-gods-and-jesus-in-john-1030-39.html).

//The simple fact that the Jewish religious leaders were seeking to kill Jesus long before the discussion in John 8 deals a serious blow to the Verse 59 Argument.//

This bypasses the fact of 1. in THIS Gospel (i.e. John) they wanted to kill Him for claiming to be equal with God or God both before and after John chapter 8. But also 2. it bypasses the fact that in this context of John chapter 8 prior to v. 59, and the verses he mentions the Jews wanted to kill Him (vss. 40 and 37), Jesus may have already made other veiled claims to deity in verses 8:24 and 8:28. So that weakens HeKS's claim that it couldn't have been because Jesus was implicitly claiming deity since they were trying to kill Him before v. 58. In other words, his citation of vss. 40, and 37 are STILL AFTER verses 24 and 28. In which case, their intention to kill Him in 40 and 37 could still be due to His veiled claim to Deity.

Notice Jesus' statements:

24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he [ego eimi] you will die in your sins."

28 So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he [ego eimi], and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.

IF Jesus is making a veiled claim to deity in His use of ego eimi in both verses, then it should and/or could be translated "I am" or "I AM". I said, "and/or" because, as I said above, I could combine the traditional translation and interpretation with something like McKay's.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗛𝗲𝗞𝗦 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀:

//The simple fact that the Jewish religious leaders were seeking to kill Jesus long before the discussion in John 8 deals a serious blow to the Verse 59 Argument. To the extent that it relies on the claim that Jesus must have said something so shockingly blasphemous that it ignited in the Jewish religious leaders a spontaneous and novel desire to kill him, it fails utterly. //

I'm glad HeKS makes the following concession:

//With regard to the more basic claim that Jesus must have said something blasphemous within the confines of this conversation for the Jews to now attempt to publicly stone him, it is hard to say with certainty whether or not this is true. It’s certainly possible, but...........//

//...........but it must be remembered that these religious leaders had been seeking to kill Jesus since he healed the man on the Sabbath. On that occasion, Jesus exposed “the insensibility of their hearts”, but they apparently believed that he had broken the Sabbath. Sabbath-breaking was a capital crime under the Law and so, in the eyes of the religious leaders, they would have already had their justification for stoning him. //

It's ironic that he mentions sabbath breaking. Since, earlier the Jews wanted to kill Jesus in THIS Gospel for "breaking" the Sabbath by healing on that day and thus making Himself equal with God, in that He claimed to be able to work on the Sabbath like God does.

John 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

Jesus Is Equal with God 

18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

See my blog "Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father"

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/jesus-breaking-sabbath-as-evidence-of.html

//Second, the specific claim Jesus was making would have been considered blasphemous because he would have appeared to be appropriating for himself the prerogatives of God in the same way as he was earlier accused of doing when he healed a paralytic by saying, “your sins are forgiven.” On that occasion, he was accused of blasphemy, and the same charge would apply here.//

That's ironic for HeKS to say because Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sin IS a veiled claim to deity. Presumably HeKS would prefer citing the Markan version of Jesus forgiving sin. Well, I've argued that GMark has a VERY HIGH Christology and when seen in light of the OT clearly portrays Jesus as Yahweh. See my blogpost titled, "Markan Christology":

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/markan-christology.html

//This single claim, then, if untrue, would represent two separate capital offences. //

It should be noted that HeKS's claims of different capital offenses don't conflict with the Trinitarian interpretation of John 8:58. They could just be added to the charge of the blasphemy of claiming to be God. Proving that the Jews had other offenses in mind does nothing to disprove they *also* had in mind the offense Trinitarians who hold to the traditional view think they had in mind at v. 59.

//On this reading, any basis for the Verse 59 Argument evaporates.//

Not at all, since I said that there can be a combination of 1. "Prior Existence Rendering" & 2. " ‘I AM’ Rendering."

//The interpretation that the Jews tried to stone Jesus in verse 59 because they rightly understood him to be claiming the identity of their God is not and cannot be the simplest interpretation for one reason: It is not a plausible interpretation at all.//

My comments above shows why it's not implausible at all. Because in other locations in GJohn, but before and after John 8, there were attempts and intentions to kill Jesus on account of their impression that Jesus was claiming to be God (John 5:18; 10:33; 19:7).

John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God."

Regarding John 19:7, I concede to Unitarians that the phrase "Son of God" with reference to Jesus often (usually?) refers to Jesus as the Messianic Davidic heir (esp. in the Synoptics). However, that can't be the sense here in John 19:7 because it wasn't a capital offense according to the Law to claim to be the messiah. Therefore, in this instance (and in other places in John [though not necessarily all]) the phrase "Son of God" is being used as a title with the connotation of a claim to Deity. 

Regarding John 10:33, see this excellent article by Jonathan McLatchie, ""I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" (JOHN 10:30): A CLAIM TO DEITY?"

https://web.archive.org/web/20180806022624/http://apologetics-academy.org/blog/2016/2/19/i-and-the-father-are-one-john-1030-a-claim-to-deity

//However, given the Jews’ conception of God, this interpretation would simply not be possible for them given the content of Jesus’ own statements throughout the dispute.//

I disagree given the "Two Power in Heaven" view popular among many of the Jews prior to and during that time. A view also reflected in the Targums. Rabbinic Judaism is post-Christian. Second Temple Judaism [~500 BCE to ~100 CE] allowed for the orthodoxy of the Two Powers in Heaven doctrine whereby there was a Greater invisible Yahweh in heaven and a Lesser Yahweh who could visit earth and become visible. Some Jews held to it. Only with the popularity of Christianity was the doctrine deemed heretical by Jews in the 2nd century CE. When one examines the OT, the second Yahweh figure is attributed the same honor, worship, attributes, names, deeds & authority the first Yahweh figure does. Rogers makes a great arguments showing the 2nd Yahweh, the Angel of Yahweh is to be the Messiah.

Here's Segal's Two Powers in Heaven online in archive.org: https://archive.org/details/TwoPowersInHeavenEarlyRabSegal

Here's Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser's website where he introduces the Two Powers concept:

http://twopowersinheaven.com/

Word of the Lord in the Targums

http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm

//In all these statements, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his Father, making it plain that they are numerically distinct individuals. Given that the Trinitarian believes God to be one Being, but the Father and Son to be two Persons,...//

As I said, there are different Trinitarian models. Some flirt with nascent tritheism in that they, for all intents and purposes to the contrary, posit the persons of the Trinity as [or almost like] distinct entities with their own beings or substances. As I said, some of the church fathers expressed their Trinitarianism in ways kind of like this [with variations and permutations in both understanding and expression]. I'm open to those type of models, but like the quote says about [modern, usually Evangelical] Trinitarians, they believe the three distinct persons share one divine being [which is my default position]. That seems to better preserve monotheism without going in the other extreme of Modalism.

//While a modern Trinitarian might be able to sustain a belief that Jesus went on to identify himself as the One True God in spite of his explicit statement in this verse, the same could not be said for any ancient Jew. By explicitly identifying his Father, The Father, as the one whom these Jews said was their God, Jesus foreclosed on any possibility that they could then go on to understand him to be claiming the identity of that very same God when he used the utterly common words ego eimi just seconds later.//

ALSO

//It is not remotely plausible to think that an orthodox Jew of the 1st century, after hearing Jesus repeatedly and explicitly distinguish himself from the one he identified as God, would then go on to hear Jesus use the words ego eimi and suddenly place his comment into the context of a multi-personal Godhead, which would have been necessary in order to sustain the interpretation that Trinitarians allege here. Such a concept was simply not within the interpretive toolkit of 1st-century Jewish theology.//

Again, that's a non-sequitur given the Two Powers view. Genesis 19:24 is a classic passage that troubled and perplexed interestamental Jews, and upon which variations of the Two Powers view was grounded. Because it appears to describe two different persons named Yahweh/YHWH/Yehovah.

Gen. 19:24 Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

Unitarians often claim this is a case of illeism. Michael R. Burgos Jr. wrote in chapter 2 of "Our God is Triune" regarding Gen. 19:24:

//Malone has attempted to explain the third person reference via illeism.[lxxxii] However, the explicit personal distinction in Genesis 19:24 annuls such a reading: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.” The prepositional phrase מֵאֵת יהוה מִן־הַשָּׁמָיִם (“from Yahweh from heaven”) indicates via spatial and functional distinction that two persons who are both Yahweh are in view, namely, Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh.[lxxxiii] Aside from these examples, there are several other passages which indicate trinitarian plurality, if taken in tandem with the other biblical data.[lxxxiv]

ENDNOTES:

[lxxxii] Malone, Andrew S. 2009. “God the Illeist: Third Person Self-References and Trinitarian Hints in the Old Testament,” JETS, 52/3, 501. Elledge follows Malone here, and in his dissertation on the subject he completely neglects to assess the significance or impact of the divine Angel. Elledge, E. Roderick, The Illeism of Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of the Use of the Third-Person Self-Reference in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and its Implications for Christology, PhD Diss., 2015, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 4-5; 85-86.

//And if they couldn’t possibly have understood Jesus to be claiming the identity of the Father, then they could not possibly have understood him to be claiming the identity of God at all.//

But THAT'S EXACTLY what happens in the passages I cited and which are never brought up in the entire blog. Namely, John 5:18, 10:33, 19:7. In those passages the Jews see Jesus claiming to be both distinct from God/Father, yet also equal to the Father and in some sense God. It's a SERIOUS DEFECT in HeKS's analysis and interpretation to never bring up those passages. They are bright flashlights shedding much light on the interpretation of John 8:58. ONLY as HeKS interprets John 8 IN ISOLATION from the rest of GJohn, could he make his interpretation seem plausible. But when the rest of GJohn IS taken into consideration, the 'I AM' Rendering, or a combination of the 'I AM' Rendering with the Prior Existence Rendering makes more sense.

//The wholistic interpretation of John 8:58 that has been offered here, which includes the Prior Existence Rendering, shows that Jesus did not claim the identity of God in this verse and that it cannot reasonably be cited in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, it does not specifically contradict the Trinity doctrine either. When properly rendered and understood, this verse establishes that Jesus existed prior to his human birth and that his existence extended at least thousands of years into the past. This fact is certainly consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is also consistent with the position of those millions of unitarian Christians around the world who accept Jesus’ preexistence but deny that he is Almighty God or that the Trinity is a properly Biblical doctrine. As such, this verse is actually irrelevant to the disagreement between the two groups on the issue of Christ’s ultimate identity [2].//

I'm glad that he concedes that his interpretation is compatible with Trinitarianism. I said nearly as much before, but I didn't know he would grant it. So then, there are then three options for Trinitarians: 

1. the 'I AM' Rendering Alone, 

2. the Prior Existence Rendering Alone, and 

3. the Combination of both. 

I lean toward the 3rd option in the way I explained in point #4 above. I didn't explicitly say earlier that the Prior Existence Rendering Alone was compatible with Trinitarianism, but it's understood given that I think both renderings could be combined. Though, I don't think it's likely given the evidence for the 'I AM' Rendering.

 

Koine Greek Expert Dr. Daniel B. Wallace Explains How John 1:1 Supports the Full Deity of Christ the Logos

Koine Greek expert Dr. Daniel B. Wallace explains how John 1:1 supports the Full Deity of Christ the Logos:

Shabby and Shameless: Shabir Ally Caught LYING About John 1:1 and Dan Wallace
https://youtu.be/C9wCcpl-RmE

Some Unitarians Pray to Jesus

 

As a Trinitarian myself, I find it a bit humorous that it's a long standing debate among various Unitarian factions and sects as to whether it is permissible and/or required to pray to Jesus, or whether it is absolutely forbidden. This is one of the areas in versions of Unitarianism which accept the New Testament that reveals their instability.

A popular Unitarian Bible translation and commentary is the Revised English Version. In one of their appendices they argue that Jesus can be prayed to. Here is the link:

Appendix 15. Can We Pray to Jesus?

Another area of instability is whether Jesus is or isn't to be worshipped. The Jehovah's Witnesses have flip flopped on this issue. The following is taken from this webpage HERE. 

//Worship of Jesus is OK?

1879 "His position is contrasted with men and angels, as he is Lord of both, having 'all power in heaven and earth'. Hence it is said, 'Let all of the angels of God worship him' [that must included Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because he has 'by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.'" (C.T. Russell, Watchtower Nov. 1879, bracketed comment in the original)

1880 "He was the object of unreproved worship even when a babe, by the wise men who came to see the new-born king... He never reproved any for acts of worship offered to Himself... Had Christ not been more than man the same reason would have prevented Him from receiving worship." (Watchtower Reprints, 1, Oct., 1880, p. 144).

1898 "Question... Was he really worshipped, or is the translation faulty? Answer. Yes, we believe our Lord while on earth was really worshipped, and properly so... It was proper for our Lord to receive worship..." (Watchtower Reprints, 111, July 15, 1898, p. 2337).

1915 "As the special messenger of the Covenant, whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world to redeem the world, and whom the Father honored in every manner, testifying, 'This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased' - it was eminently proper that all who beheld his glory, as the glory of an Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, should reverence him, hear him, obey him, and worship him - do him homage - as the representative of the Father." (At-One-Ment Between God And Man, 1899; 1915 ed.; p. 134)

1945 "Since Jehovah God now reigns as King by means of his capital organization Zion, then whosoever would worship him must also bow down to Jehovah's Chief One in that organization, namely Christ Jesus, his co-regent on the throne of The Theocracy." (Watchtower, Oct 15, 1945)

1945 "The purposes of this Society are: ... public Christian worship of Almighty God and Jesus Christ; to arrange for and hold local and world-wide assemblies for such worship..." (Charter of the Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Article II, Feb 27, 1945 [the 1969 Yearbook quotes Article II of the Charter, "and for public Christian worship of Almighty God...." leaving off the original requirement to worship Jesus])

1970 "But when He again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him' Hebrews 1:6." (New World Translation, 1950, 1961, 1970 editions, [The NWT revised 1971 edition was changed to read, "do obeisance to" rather than "worship"])//

THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND JESUS CHRIST: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal By Bruce M. Metzger

The following is a classic article by renowned scholar Bruce Metzger. It was written 1953 and therefore not all of its criticism of the New World Translation applies to modern editions and revisions of the NWT.

THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND JESUS CHRIST: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal 

By Bruce M. Metzger

The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered by J. V. Dahms

I don't take a dogmatic stand on the controversy regarding the proper interpretation of monogenēs. There are days when I side with the traditional interpretation, and days when I side with the view of modern scholarly consensus. But there is a minority report among scholars for the traditional interpretation. Hence the link below to J.V. Dahms' paper The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered. The displayed version at that link is illegible, but the downloaded version is legible.  Once downloaded fix the file name extension from .pdf ' (with the apostrophe) to .pdf (without it). Then your default PDF viewer will be able to recognize it.

http://documentslide.com/documents/john-v-dahms-the-johannine-use-of-monogenes-reconsidered.html


Or download it from Scribd here. Or here.

See also Lee Irons' well known paper The Eternal Generation of the Son


I don't know how long J.V. Dahms' paper will be available at that link. So, I've copy and pasted the paper below. Keep in mind that pdf content doesn't copy and paste very well. The formatting will be terrible.


THE JOHANNINE USE OF MONOGENĒS
RECONSIDEREDJ. V. DahmsFrom New Testament Studies, Vol. 29, 1983, pp. 222-32Most modern scholars are convinced that monogenēs in John 1. 14, 18; 3. 16, 18; 1
John 4. 9, does not mean ‘only begotten’. As a result such modern English versions
such as RSV, NEB, NIV, GNB, present renderings like ‘only’ and ‘one and only’.
Extensive articles such as those by D. Moody, ‘God’s Only Son: The Translation of
John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version’, Journal of Biblical Literature, lxxii, Dec.
1953, pp. 213-19; P. Winter, ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ ΠΑΡΑ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ, Zeits. Rel.
Geistesgeschichte, 5 (1953), pp. 335-63; and Th. C. de Kruijf, ‘The Glory of the Only
Son (John 1:14)’, Studies in John Presented to Professor Dr. J. N. Sevenster, pp. 113-
23,1 support such renderings. Notable exceptions to the view include those of F.
Büchsel in TDNT, IV, 737-741, who holds that it ‘probably includes also begetting by
God’; and of B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 96, who states that ‘“of the Father:
(1:14) . . . is decisive for “only begotten”’.
In this paper we re-examine the evidence and present what appears to be hitherto
unnoticed support for the view that in its Johannine use the word does include the idea
of generation. We begin with arguments which have been advanced by those who
hold the opposing position.
I
The first argument is etymological. It is stated that monogenēs is related to ginomai,
“to become”. Thus –genes means a “cagetory” or a “kind”, and monogenēs really
means “only one of its kind”.2 But derivation from ginomai could have another
implication (as well?). The root gen seems to be closely related to genn, the root ofgennaō, ‘to bring forth by birth’, so that the idea of derivation, even if not by birth,
may well be present. Of course, derivation of a person from parents is by birth, so that,
if a word from the root gen were used of a person to convey the idea of derivation it
would be implied that that person had been begotten. (Properly speaking, only a man
can beget; a woman bears a child. For practical reasons, and because nothing relevant
to our study hangs upon it, we are disregarding the distinction.)3 Moreover, there is
evidence that the root gen did convey the idea of derivation, at least sometimes, asgēgenēs, diogenēs, eugenēs and suggenēs show.4In this connection it is to be noted that J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The
Vocabulary of the New Testament, pp. 416-17, among others, state that ‘only
begotten’ would be monogennētos, not monogenēs. But, if the lexicon of Liddell,
Scott and Jones may be trusted, monogennētos does not occur.5 The possibility must
not be overlooked that it does not occur because monogenēs was commonly used with
the meaning that monogennētos would have had, if it had occurred. Moreover, even ifmonogennētos was used, this would not make the use of monogenēs with a more or
less synonymous meaning impossible.
Etymology provides no objection to the meaning ‘only begotten’; it may even
provide some support for it. But, of course, meaning is determined by usage, not by
etymology.
II
The meaning of monogenēs when not used of persons is sometimes set forth as an
argument.6 In Ps. 21 (22). 20 (21) LXX, ‘Deliver my soul from the sword, mymonogenē from the power of the dog’, and Ps. 34 (35). 17 LXX, ‘Deliver my soul
from their mischief, my monogenē from lions’, the meaning must be something like
‘my unique possession’ or ‘my specially valued possession’. When Parmenides, to
take an extra-biblical example, describes ‘being’ as unbegotten, incorruptible, whole
(not in parts), mounogenēs, and without end’,7 our word evidently means something
like ‘unique’. Further illustrations of a similar nature can be adduced.
But such evidence may not be decisive for the meaning when persons are being
described.
III
Arguments are frequently advanced to show that our term is sometimes used of
people, divine beings, etc., in such a way as to imply that the idea of derivation is not
present.
Various writers8 draw attention to Heb. 11. 17, ‘Abraham, when he was tested,
offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up ton
monogenē.’ They point out that Abraham had another son at the time, Ishmael, and,
on this ground, argue that monogenēs cannot mean ‘only begotten’, even when used
of people. They contend that the meaning must be that Isaac is called monogenēs to
signify that he was unique and/or beloved.9But the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan contains what may be a hint that the argument
is invalid. Though Ishmael is referred to therein as a son of Abraham, according to the
Targum on Gen. 21, ‘In Izhak shall sons be called unto thee; and this son of the
handmaid shall not be genealogized after thee.’10 In addition, it may not be without
significance that the Targum on Gen. 22 describes Isaac as the son of Abraham’s wife,
whereas Ishmael is said to be the son of Sarah’s handmaid: ‘Izhak said, It is right that
I should inherit what is the father’s, because I am the son of Sarah his wife, and thou
art the son of Hagar the handmaid of my mother.’ (Cf. Gen. 21. 10.)
More to the point is a passage in Philo which discusses the sacrifice of Isaac, and is
evidently dependent on Gen. 22 in a Greek version11 which, unlike LXX, described
Isaac as monogenēs.12 According to de Abr., 194, ‘He (Abraham) had begotten no son
in the truest sense but Isaac (gnēsion te huion pepoiēmenos monon touton euthus
eiche). (Cf. de Sac., 43.) Other Philonic descriptions of Isaac to the effect that he was
Abraham’s ‘only and dearly cherished (agapētos kai monos) son’ (de Abr., 168; cf. de
Abr., 196; Quod Deus Imm., 4) suggest that monogenēs meant ‘beloved’, but make it
clear that it implied ‘only (child)’ as well.
Not only does the foregoing evidence indicate that the common argument based on
Heb. 11. 17 is unfounded, it indicates that monogenēs means ‘only’, if not ‘only
begotten’.
According to P. Winter, loc. Cit., p. 342, on one occasion ‘Josephus uses the term
in the sense of “favourite”, “best-beloved”, - so in Ant., XX.ii.1.22 where he records
that king Monobaz of Adiabene bestowed his parental affections upon his “only-
begotten son” Izates thus provoking the envy of Izates’ ‘brothers.’ But such an
understanding of the passage, found also in Whiston’s translation, is to be questioned.
L. H. Feldman in the Loeb edition of Josephus’ works translates, ‘It was clear that all
his favour was concentrated on Izates as if he were an only child (hōs eis monogenē).’
Surely Feldman’s translation represents what Josephus wrote, and renders Winter’s
argument invalid
Attention has been drawn to some passages, however, which are more
problematical:
1. Psalm 24 (25). 16 LXX, ‘Look upon me and have mercy upon me for I ammonogenēs and poor.’ We think it not impossible that the meaning ‘only child’, i.e.
one who has no sibling to provide help, is (also?) intended. (Cf. Gen. 4. 9; 38. 8; Lev.
21. 2; 25. 25, 48; Deut. 25. 5; 28. 54.) But perhaps such a description as ‘solitary’ or
‘lonely’ is intended.
2. Wisdom 7. 22, ‘In her (wisdom) there is a spirit that is intelligent, holy,monogenēs . . .’ In view of the dependence of Wisd. 7-8 on Prov. 8, it is entirely
possible that the idea of generation is included in this use of our term, since Prov. 8.
25 LXX speaks of the Lord begetting (gennai) wisdom.133. 1 Clem. 25. 2, ‘There is a bird which is called the Phoenix. This is monogenēs,
and lives 500 years.’ It is not impossible that the legend that there was only one
Phoenix at a time, and that it came forth from the ashes of its predecessor, made it
appropriate for it to be described as ‘only derived’. As we have seen, ‘only derived’ is
possibly the proper meaning of monogenēs, and ‘only begotten’ is the implication of
‘only derived’ when birth is in view.
4. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, pp. 71 ff. n. 2, points out that such ‘divinities’
as Hecate, Core, Persephone and Demeter are described as monogenēs. (Once only
Phanes, though probably in error for prōtogonos.) Demeter is of special interest for us
because she is described in Greek mythology as a daughter of Cronos and Rhea, who
are credited with such further offspring as Hestia, Hera, Hades, Poseidon and Zeus. It
is to be noted, however, that Bultmann thinks that the description of these divinities asmonogenēs is ‘probably on the basis of old tradition’, and one wonders whether it
may not be that it harks back to a period before the relationship of the various
divinities to one another was developed to the extent familiar to us. Perhaps there was
a time when each of the divinities was thought of as only begotten, though we must
admit that the idea of uniqueness is peculiarly appropriate to Demeter.145. In O. Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, 247, 23, the Biblical Moses is described asmounogenēs. The Pentateuchal record concerning Aaron and Miriam makes it clear
that ‘only begotten’ cannot be the meaning of our term in this instance.
The foregoing constitutes all the evidence we have found supporting the view thatmonogenēs, when used of persons, does not include the concept of generation. When
contrasted with what is to be said on the other side, the evidence is not very
impressive. It is certainly not impressive enough to be decisive concerning the
ordinary meaning of our term.
In addition to the evidence already adduced on the other side, there is the fact that,
during the controversy with the Arians and thereafter, monogenēs is represented as
including the idea of generation. Of a number of examples, perhaps the most notable
is Jerome’s Vulgate version of John 1. 14, 18; 3. 16, 18; 1 John 4. 9; Heb. 11. 17,
where our term is translated unigenitus.15It has been argued that it was at this time that it was first thought that monogenēsincludes the idea of generation.16 In support of this view it has been noted that the old
Latin Codex Vercellensis (a) has unicus as the translation of mongenēs, a practice to
which Jerome’s Vulgage conforms except in the Christologically significant passages
cited above. It has also been noted that the versions of the Apostles’ Creed found in
Augustine and the Sacramentum Gallicanum (A.D. 650) have unigenitus whereas
older and later versions have unicus in describing Christ. And it has been pointed out
that in the second credal statement at the end of Epiphanius’ Ancoratus (A.D. 374)
Christ is described as gennēthenta ek theou patros monogenē. That a form of gennaōas well as a form of monogenēs is thus used is said to be because monogenēs by itself
did not include the idea of generation.17It is perhaps to be expected that the orthodox would be eager to find the doctrine of
the generation of the Son in as many Scriptures as possible, even though the Arians
could speak of the divine Son as ‘begotten (gegennēmenon) before all ages’.18 But it
is difficult to believe that monogenēs could be newly understood to have or to include
this meaning under such circumstances. Many of the people concerned were welleducated and thoroughly familiar with Greek. The controversies in which they were
engaged involved them in consideration of the precise meaning of various terms,
including the one presently of interest to us.19 Such circumstances would be
unfavourable to the penetration of new meanings into these terms. Indeed, they would
militate against such a development. Moreover, one would have expected such
evidence of objection if someone had newly intimated that our term included the idea
of generation. I know of no such evidence.
On the other hand, given the nature of the Arian controversy, it is understandable
that the idea of generation, if implicit in our term, would be brought to the fore. This
would explain Jerome’s use of unigenitus in Christological passages of the New
Testament, if it be true that the Old Latin versions always rendered monogenēs byunicus, as was apparently the case with the Codex Vercellensis, which was
‘supposedly written in A.D. 365 by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli’.20 But that this
codex is typical of the Old Latin version(s) is questionable. When Hilary of Poitiers,On the Trinity (before 358),21 I, 10, quotes John 1. 1-14, he uses unigenitus. He does
likewise when quoting John 1. 18 in ibid., VI, 39, where he appends the comment,
‘He not only calls Him the Son, but adds the further designation of the Only-begotten
(unigenitum), and so cuts away the last prop from under this imaginary adoption. For
the fact is that He is Only-begotten (unigeniti) is proof positive of His right to the
name of Son.’ It is hardly conceivable that he could have made such a comment
without more ado unless his readers were familiar with unigenitus in their Latin New
Testaments. At a later point we shall quote a passage from Tertullian which raises the
question whether unigenitus did not occur in a (the) Latin version commonly used in
his day.
That unigenitus appears in the versions of the Apostle’s Creed found in the
writings of Augustine and in the Sacramentarium Gallicum and not in earlier Latin
Versions is easily explained as due to the influence of the Arian controversy. That the
final form of the Western Creed reads unicus is no doubt due to the power of tradition.
The widespread persistence of ‘trespasses’ in modern recitation of the Lord’s Prayer
among English-speaking people is somewhat comparable.
That an early credal statement should describe Christ as gennēthenta ek theou
patros monogenē is not necessarily because the idea of begetting was absent from the
meaning of monogenēs. Prōtotokon in eteken ton huion autēs ton prōtotokon (Luke 2.
7) includes the idea of bearing (a child) even though it is used with eteken in a way
more or less similar to the way in which monogenē is used with gennēthenta in the
phrase with which we are concerned.
But more important is the evidence, in addition to that found in Philo, thatmonogenēs was understood to include the idea of generation prior to the days of the
Arian debates:
1. When monogenēs is used of persons, the context usually makes it clear that the
descent of the person described by it is in view. Phrases like ‘monogenēs son’ (Luke 7.
12), and ‘I am the monogenēs of my father’ (Tob. 6. 14 .a), are common. (Cf. Tob. 6.
14. B, ‘I am the monos of my father.’22) Apart from the few references discussed
above, every occurrence of our term with respect to persons is in a context in which
the idea of descent is either implied or is appropriate. Such phrases as ‘monogenēsbrother’ are notably non-existent.
2. Tob. 8. 17, ‘Thou hast had compassion on two monogeneis.’ Tob. 3. 10-15 and 6.
14 make it clear that what is meant is that each of the two mentioned, namely Tobias
and Sarah, is an only child. But these verses are so far removed – 84 lines between 6.
14 and 8. 17 in Rahlfs’ edition of the Vaticanus text – that it is unlikely thatmonogenēs would be used absolutely, as it is in 8. 17, unless it was understood as
itself including the ‘child’ idea.
3. Justin, Dial. with Trypho, 105, quotes Ps. 22. 20 LXX, ‘Deliver my soul from
the sword, and my monogenē from the hand of the dog’, and insisting on a Messianic
prophecy therin, comments on monogenē: ‘I have already proved that he was themonogenēs of the Father in all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and
Power by Him (idiōs ex autou logos kai dunamis gegennēmenos), and having
afterwards become man through the Virgin . . .’ Concerning this passage note (a)
Unless it is in monogenēs, there is nothing in the Psalm which intimates that what is
spoken of is a son, or is begotten of God; and (b) The conception of the begotten
‘Word’ is surely owed to the use of monogenēs of the Logos in John 1. (It may be
added that the reference to previous demonstration apparently looks back to chapters
61 and 62 in which Prov. 8. 22 ff. is interpreted as teaching the begetting of the Son
by the Father.)
4. Justin, Apol., I.23, ‘Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by
God (monos idiōs huios tō theō gegennētai), being His Word and first-begotten, and
Power; and becoming man according to His wil . . .’ This passage, with its reference
to the Son of God as the ‘Word’of God, is probably dependent on John 1. But, if so,
Justin understood monogenēs to mean ‘only begotten’.
5. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, vii, ‘By proceeding from Himself He became His
first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and unigenitus because alonegenitus of God.’ Besides the reminiscence of Johannine usage in unigenitus, the
context specifies that the ‘Word’ is being described, providing further evidence thatmonogenēs in John 1 is understood to mean unigenitus.
It seems clear that monogenēs, when used of persons, was always understood to
include the idea of generation. This understanding did not have its beginning at the
time of the Arian controversy.
IV
On the basis of the context of John 1. 14, 18, and of 1 John 4. 9, P. Winter loc. cit., p.
336, has argued that monogenēs in the Johannine writings must mean ‘unique’.
Of the former text he says, ‘Although Jn 1:14, 18 speaks of one who is monogenēsin relation to God, v. 12 does not exclude others from the possibility of “becoming
children of God”.’ He has overlooked the fact that ‘children’ in 1. 12 is tekna, and that
in the Johannine literature teknon is never used of Christ’s relation to God, just as
huios is never used of the relationship of Christians to God. Moreover, the term
‘Father’ occurs of God in 1. 14, and in a way which seems applicable only to the
divine Son in the Johannine usage. Those who are Christ’s are described as ‘children
of God’ (John 1. 12; 11. 52; 1 John 3. 1, 2, 10; 5. 2), as ‘born of God’ (John 1. 13; 1
John 3. 9; 4. 7; 5. 1, 4, 18), as ‘born of the Spirit’ (John 3. 5, 8), and as ‘of God’ (1
John 3. 10; 4. 4, 6; 3 John 11; cf. 1 John 4. 1, 2, 3). But ‘Father’, common as it is as a
designation of deity in these writings, never occurs in such contexts. The nearest to an
exception is in John 20. 17, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God
and your God’, but on this passage such a comment as the following is typical: ‘It
seems as though He is of set purpose placing Himself in a different relationship to the
Father from that which His followers occupy.’23 On the other hand Christ frequently
speaks of God as ‘my Father’ (John 5. 17-18 is especially instructive), and is often
described as the Son of ‘the Father’. (E.g. John 3. 35; 1 John 4. 14; 2 John 3.) We
suggest, therefore, that the para patros in John 1. 14 (contrast the para theou of John
the Baptist in John 1. 6) provides further reason to believe that Winter’s argument is
invalid.
Concerning the occurrence of our term in the Johannine epistle, Winter says, ‘After
1 Jn IV.9 has explicitly spoken of the hios (sic) tou theou ho monogenēs, V.1 goes on
to say: pas ho pisteuōn . . . ek tou theou gegennētai. No exclusiveness in number, but
a distinctive quality is here . . . indicated by the expression, µονογενής.’ Again he has
overlooked the fact that huios and teknon describe different relationships to God in
Johannine thinking. The use of huios in the former and of teknon in the immediate
context of the latter verse (i.e. in 5. 2) implies ‘a distinctive quality’ so that such need
not be implicit in monogenēs.
Winter’s arguments lose their cogency in light of the Johannine use of huios,teknon and patēr.
V
On the Basis of Heb. 11. 17, P. Winter, loc. cit., pp. 343 ff., and Th. C. de Kruijf, loc.
cit., pp. 113 ff., suggest that monogenēs may have been used absolutely of Isaac, and
that there may have developed the use of monogenēs and of monogenēs para patros(cf. John 1. 14), as a designation of Israel. John 1. 14, 18, are therefore to be
understood as containing an allusion to the understanding of Israel as God’smonogenēs. Evidence is drawn from Pss. Sol. 18. 4 and 4 Ezra 6. 58 to show that
Israel was so described. Note is also taken of the evidence in Philo, De Mutatione
Nominum, 81, that Israel was known as the God-seer, and therefore as the one who
makes Him known. It is suggested that there is an allusion to this in John 1. 18, ‘No
one has ever seen God; the monogenēs Son (or ‘God’) . . . he has made him known.’
Of course, if such is the case, the application of our term to Christ would hardly imply
derivation in anything like the sense of offspring from a parent.
Winter is correct in suggesting that monogenēs in John 1. 14, 18, may owe
something to the view that Isaac was known as Abraham’s monogenēs. He is quite
incorrect, however, in seeing Christ as somehow identified with, or the counterpart to,
the nation of Israel in the Prologue of John. In John 1. 14-18 Christ is clearly
contrasted with the leader of Israel in the time of the Exodus, not with the nation of
Israel. Moreover, it is not the nation of Israel as the God-seer which is in view, as
Winter believes, but Moses as the God-seer, or at least as the one who sought to see
God. As A. T. Hanson has pointed out, ‘The law was given through Moses, grace and
truth came through Jesus Christ’ (John 1. 17), is immediately followed by ‘No man
has ever seen God . . .’, and so reflects Ex. 33. 12-34. 9, a passage in which ‘the
giving of the law is associated with a man (Moses) seeing God.’24 Moreover, he
observes (1) that in this Exodus passage Moses is promised that God will cause His
‘goodness’ (33. 19) and His ‘glory’ (33. 22) to pass by, both words being rendereddoxa in the LXX (cf. John 1. 14); and (2) that plērēs chariots kai alētheias in John 1.
14 is a ‘more literal translation’ of rabh chesedh we’emeth than we have in Ex. 34. 5-
6 LXX, ‘And kyrios passed by before his face and called, Kyrios the merciful and
compassionate God, long-suffering and full of mercy and true (polueleos kai
alēthinos).’25There can be no objection to the idea that descent is implied in monogenēs on the
basis that Israel was known as God’s monogenēs, because such a designation for
Israel is not reflected in John 1. 14-18.
VI
We have shown that the view that monogenēs in the Johannine literature does not
mean ‘only begotten’ has very little to be said in its favour. In discussing the
arguments advanced to support that view, we have brought forth strong reasons
favouring the other side. We now proceed to draw attention to a further consideration
supportive of our thesis.
Each time monogenēs is used in John and 1 John it is in a context in which it is
preceded by a prominent occurrence or occurrences of gennaō in reference to the
‘spiritual birth’ of men. (See John 1. 13-18; 3. 3-18; 1 John 4. 7-9.) That it follows
such a use of gennaō in John 1. 13 is noted by M. Dods in The Expositor’s Greek New
Testament, I, 690. He comments, ‘The expression is no doubt suggested by the
immediately preceding statement that as many as received Christ were born of God.
The glory of the Incarnate Logos, however, is unique, that of an only begotten.’ What
seems not to have been noted hitherto is that the other occurrences of our term support
the judgement that the term gennaō suggested the use of monogenēs and thatmonogenēs therefore means ‘only begotten’.
But not only does Dods have the support of the other Johannine passages in which
our term is found. He has the support of 1 John 5. 18, ‘We know that anyonegegennēmenos of God does not sin, but he who is gennētheis of God keeps him.’ Here
reference to the ‘spiritual birth’ of men is followed by reference to Christ as born of
God. The parallel with the passages in which monogenēs is found is evident, except
that this time a form of gennaō is used instead of monogenēs! (The distinction
between the two kinds of sonship is preserved in that the perfect participle is used of
men, the aorist participle of Christ.)
D. Moody, loc. cit., p. 219, disputes the rendering of 1 John 5. 18 given above, and
argues that we should read ‘any one born of God keeps himself’.
The problem is a textual one, the question being whether we should read ‘keeps
him (auton)’ or ‘keeps himself (hauton or heauton)’. The codices aACKPΨ and
numerous other witnesses, including some early versions, read heauton. In support of
this reading Moody asserts that the idea of ‘keeping (tērei) oneself’ is repeated in 1
John 5. 21, ‘keep (phulaxate) yourselves from idols’. (John 17. 12 shows that tēreōand phulassō can be used synonymously.) But to say that we have ‘the repetition of
the same idea’ in 5. 21 as in our clause in 5. 18 is to be unaware of the difference in
meaning when a verb is used absolutely from when it is not. It is also to be noted that
the concept of ‘keeping oneself’ in the absolute sense does not occur elsewhere in the
New Testament.
Though the unambiguous reading of auton is not well-attested, it is found in a
number of minuscules, and is supported by the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and some other
versions. Moreover, it is probable that the codices A* and B, which could be read as
either auton or hauton, should be read auton, since hauton had become relatively
uncommon by the first century A.D.26 (But see John 2. 24.) Even more important: (1)
The change from the perfect participle ho gegennēmenos in the first part of the verse
to the aorist participle ho gennētheis in the second is strange if reference is being
made to the same person; (2) Elsewhere John always uses γεγεννηµένος, never γεννηθείς of the believer’;27 and (3) There is a close parallel in John 17. 12, ‘I kept
(etēroun) them in thy name which thou has given me; I have guarded (ephulaxa)
them.’ (Cf. Rev. 3. 10.)28 It may be noted that the United Bible Societies Greek New
Testament, Third Edition, and most, if not all, of the recent translations into English
accept the reading auton. (Cf. RSV, NASB, NEB, JB, NIV, GNB.)
In connection with his argument Moody states that gennaō is used in Ps. 2 LXX
with reference to a ‘coronation idea, not a conception idea’. But there seems to be no
evidence that Ps. 2 influenced the Johannine Gospel or Epistles.29 On the other hand
Prov. 8 is significant for this literature. Indeed, it is especially significant for the
Prologue of John where mongenēs occurs twice. Though it is likely that its occurrence
with respect to Isaac had much to do with the description of the Logos as monogenēsin this passage and elsewhere in our literature, it is probable that Prov. 8. 25 LXX was
also influential. (It is there stated that God begets [gennai] Wisdom. Moreover, the
origin, not the coronation of Wisdom, is clearly in view.) What we have said of 1
John 5. 18 strengthens this probability and is strengthened by it.
We have examined all of the evidence which has come to our attention concerning
the meaning of monogenēs in the Johannine writings and have found that the majority
view of modern scholarship has very little to support it. On the other hand, the
external evidence, especially that from Philo, Justin, Tertullian, and the internal
evidence from the context of its occurrences, makes clear that ‘only begotten’ is the
most accurate translation after all.
NOTES1 See also R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, pp. 71 ff. n. 2.2 E. A. Nida, Good News for Everyone, p. 64.3 D. Moody, loc. cit., p. 217, seems to overlook the fact that gennaō can have a female as well as a
male for its subject.4 Cf. F. Büchsel in TDNT, IV, 737-738.5 So also B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, Fourth Edition, p. 171 n. 2.6 E.g. D. Moody, loc. cit., pp. 217, 219.7 Qu. By Büchsel in TDNT, IV, 738 n. 5.8 E.g. D. Moody, loc. cit., p. 217; E. A. Nida, op. cit., p. 64; L. Morris, The Gospel according to
John, p. 105.9 See P. Winter, loc. cit., pp. 338 ff., re ‘beloved’ as a translation of monogenēs.10 Trans. by J. W. Etheridge.11 Philo used the Old Testament in a Greek translation. Cf. O. Zöckler in The New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, IX, 41.12 For the rather considerable evidence of such a text, see P. Winter, loc. cit., pp. 337-8.13 This assumes with U. Wilckens in TDNT, VII, 500 n. 219, that ‘σοφία is expressly defined asπνεύµα in Wis. 7:22 f.’ Cf. W. Bieder in TDNT, VI, 371 n. 188.14 R. Bultmann, loc. cit., states that any influence of this usage on the Fourth Gospel could only be
‘very indirectly, if there is a connection between it and the use of µονογ. as a cosmological attribute’.
Bultmann’s judgment is especially significant in view of the fact that he is prone to derive Johannine
concepts and usages from Hellenistic sources.
15 Jerome’s revision of the New Testament was commissioned probably in 382. For evidence from
this period that monogenēs means ‘only (begotten?)’ and not merely ‘unique’ and/or ‘beloved’, see
Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, II.xxi.62; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, II, 7;
II, 8; Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture XI, 2.16 B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 171; D. Moody, loc. cit., pp. 214-16.17 See D. Moody, loc. cit., pp. 214-15.18 ‘The Private Creed of Arius’ qu. In P. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, II, 28; see also Gregory
of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, II, 7.19 See n. 14.20 D. Moody, loc. cit., p. 214.21 F. Loofs in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, V, 283.22 Because of Tob. 6. 14 B we doubt that B. Lindars, op. cit., p. 96, is correct when he states thatpara patros in John 1. 14 is decisive for ‘only begotten’.23 L. Morris, op. cit., p. 842. But see C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament, p. 110.24 Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, p. 110.25 Ibid., pp. 110-11.26 Cf. Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 35; A. T. Robertson, A
Greek Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 226.27B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 719. The strength of this
point may be diluted by the fact that in John 1. 13 (most witnesses) the aorist indicative passive is used
of the believer. Ibid. states that A* and B support the reading auton.28 See D. M. Scholer in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (Edited by G. F.
Hawthorne), p. 245 n. 72, for a fuller discussion of this matter.29 That Christ is called the ‘Son of God’ could be derived from 2 Sam. 7. 14. Cf. 1 En. 105. 2; 4 Ezra
7. 28 f.; 13. 52; 14. 9. John 20. 29 is reminiscent of Ps. 2. 12 LXX but it is doubtful that it is dependent
thereon. (Cf. C. K. Barrrett, The Gospel according to John, p. 477). C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of
the Fourth Gospel, p. 271, suggests that the use of gennaō in John 1. 13 may owe something to Jewish
interpretation of Ps. 2. 7 as referring to the true Israel. (Cf. W. F. Howard, Christianity according to St.
John, p. 198.) In our opinion the fact that the tekna of God are being described, whereas Ps. 2 speaks of
the huios of God, a term our author reserves for Christ, tells against any conscious dependence on Ps. 2.