Jesus - firstborn and begotten

[darinhouston]

This thread is to continue discussions from other topics on the nature of Jesus as the "firsborn of all creatures" and whether He is "eternally begotten." To kick start the discussion, I have transcribed (roughly) a monologue below from Steve from TNP radio show on the subject:

…[Older translators] thought monogenes had to do with "generated" or "born" – but Greek scholars are now fairly in agreement that monogenes does not come from the word “begotten” or “born” – that monogenes just is a word that means "one and only," or "unique," so for example in John 3:16 (which many of us memorized as "his only begotten son") – modern translations will render it so that it says He gave his “one and only son.” Which is maybe not such a big difference, but since the JWs are referring to John 1:14 which says “we beheld His glory - the glory as of the only begotten (or the "one and only") of the Father. They are trying to make the issue that since Jesus was the “Son” of God (or the “begotten” of God), that He had a beginning and that he was a creation of God.

Now, Trinitarians – that is, people like me who believe in the Trinity – usually answer: “Well, Jesus was not ‘created’ by God – he was ‘begotten’ by God." There’s as much difference between those two things as for example if I was to make with my own hands a statue out of clay or if I had a child – making something and begetting something are two very different things. The clay thing that I make would not have life and would not have my nature in it at all – it would simply be an artifact of mine. But, my children have my own life and my own nature in them. And so Trinitarians would usually say “Jesus was not ‘created’ by God, He was ‘begotten’ by God.” But the JWs come back and – somewhat reasonably – they say “But, if he was begotten, then doesn’t that mean he had a beginning? How can somebody become the son of somebody else without being born, since being born is an event – before the event, he didn’t exist." So, if Jesus was begotten by the father, that seems to point to an event or point in time.

Now, there’s different ways that Trinitarians answer that. Sometimes, Trinitarians say “Well, he was ‘eternally’ begotten of the Father.” That’s a very common Trinitarian expression (he’s "eternally begotten" of the Father), which means something like – well, I’m not sure what it means – the Bible doesn’t use that term so I’m not really sure what people mean when they use it.

It could mean that he was begotten of God but not at some point in time, but in eternity—he was (or is) eternally begotten. There was not a point in time when he came to be.

Or it could mean that he is generated out of the father – forever, just as light is generated out of a lamp, or more properly out of the sun, itself. The sun in our solar system generates light and heat and it has been doing so as long as it has existed. If the sun was “eternal” – that is if the solar sun was there forever, then its light and heat would have been there forever and ever also, and would be eternally generated from it. The light of the sun could be said to have been "begotten" by the sun or generated by the sun. It did not have a “starting point” later than the sun’s "starting point."

So, the Trinitarian could say the son was "eternally begotten" from the Father, and that would mean of course that Jesus – who is, in John 1, referred to as the Word of God and is referred to in that same chapter as the Life which is the light of men – that Jesus is the light that came from God. It says in Hebrews 1:3 that Jesus was the Son of God and it says that “he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person.”

So, it could be said - and perhaps correctly so – that Jesus has been generated from or shining forth from or issuing forth from God as a child issues forth from its parents—in a sense. The imagery may be somewhat metaphorical, but it would mean that Jesus has been originated from God forever and ever and ever and ever. And that could be a way of understanding the phrase “eternally begotten.”

Now, I want to say that when I was quite young (in my 20s), after a similar discussion with JWs with this very point being brought up (I was making a point with them that Jesus was eternally begotten from the Father, and they were saying “No, if Jesus was begotten he had a beginning, and he can’t be eternally from God – that’s just playing with words”). After that conversation, I decided I would go to the Scriptures and look up everything that the Bible had to say on this subject because I wanted to be sure that I was saying something that was “biblically” correct, and not just something I’d been taught as an evangelical. And I’ll tell you what I found...

What I found is that there is no place in the Bible where he is called the “Son” prior to the incarnation of Jesus. Now, there are a couple of places in the OT where he is called the son, but they are talking about his existence after the incarnation. For example, in Is. 9:6, it says “unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” Well, the child is born – that is the incarnation. And the son is then given for man at the cross as the Messiah, the Savior. And so the son there is the son referred to in his incarnation, not prior to that.

Likewise, in Ps 2:7, it says that “the Lord has said to me – you are my son, this day I have begotten you.” This is a reference to Jesus being the son of God but again this isn’t talking about his position before the incarnation. For one thing, it isn’t talking about "eternal" sonship because it specifically says “this day” I have begotten you. So it isn’t talking about eternity – it is talking about a day. God says “you are my son, this DAY I have begotten you.”

So it does speak of a particular day of begetting, but what day is it? Well, Paul tells us that. In Acts 13:33, Paul quotes that verse and he says that verse is talking about the resurrection of Jesus – that when God says that Jesus was begotten that day, he was saying he was begotten "from the dead." He was resurrected from the dead on Easter Sunday. That is the “day” that is referred to as the day God that has begotten him. You can see that easily by looking at Acts 13:33 where Paul quotes that verse and applies it to the resurrection of Christ.

So, in other words, even though there a few places in the OT where Jesus is referred to as "the Son," they are not referring to the condition of Jesus before His birth. And there is no place in the Bible that speaks specifically of Jesus as the "Son" of God before His birth in Bethlehem. Now, I’m not saying that Jesus could not be called the Son before his birth in Bethlehem, but the Bible simply refrains from using that terminology.

But, what does the bible say about Jesus before his birth in Bethlehem? Well, John says that “in the beginning was the Word.” He doesn’t say the “Son.” He says “the Word.” In Phil 2, it says that Jesus existed in the “form of God” and did not consider his equality with God a thing to be grasped but he emptied himself and took on the form of a servant. He was in the form of God, he was the Word of God, but we don’t find that before the incarnation he was the “Son” and what’s quite interesting to me – and at the time I was looking for the biblical teaching on this, I was very interested in what was said to Mary on the occasion in Luke 1 when the angel told her that she was going to have a child – and Mary said “how can this be? I’ve never been with a man – I’m a virgin” and in Luke 1:35 the angel answered and said “the Holy Spirit will come upon you – the power of the highest will overshadow you, THEREFORE (that means "for this reason"), that holy one which is to be born of you will be called the Son of God.”

Now, did you catch that? The angel said, "THIS is why he’s the Son of God – because you, Mary, have never had sex with a man and the conception of your child will not be through natural conception with a man. It’s with God – the Holy Spirit of God will come upon you – the power of the high will overshadow you. That is how you will become pregnant – and for THAT reason, your son will be called the Son of God."

In other words, he won’t be the son of Joseph or the son of some man because there was no man involved. God was the only one involved, and therefore he’s the Son of God. The angel indicated that Jesus is called the Son of God for one reason, and that is because he was virgin-born – because of the incarnation.

Now, am I denying that Jesus was the Son of God before that time? I’m not denying it. All I’m saying is if you want biblical evidence, you won’t find it. Maybe Jesus was the Son before the incarnation, but the Bible doesn’t say so anywhere. So, when I’m talking with the JWs, I don’t feel obligated to say that Jesus was the "eternal Son" of God. I DO feel obligated to say he was God – he existed in the form of God – he was the Word before He was God. I certainly am absolutely committed to the idea that Jesus was Deity before his birth, but the specific title “Son of God” is not used of him specifically in the bible to speak of his existence prior to his incarnation.

[Homer]

Very good.

[steve7150]

– ok? ! Maybe Jesus was the Son before the incarnation, but the bible doesn’t say so anywhere.






I think the bible in effect says Jesus became the Son at the incarnation, " And behold you shall conceive in your womb and bring forth a son and shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest" Luke 1.31-32



Note the word "SHALL" meaning it has not happened yet. So calling Jesus , God's only begotten Son may simply refer to his birth as Jesus.

[jriccitelli]

Jesus always existed. The Son of God is an anthropomorphic term and is no different than Jesus being called the Rock, the Light, the Branch, The Savior, etc., even the Name Jesus may be a term reserved for the incarnation and things relative to humans, but without stumbling over all of His names - He is the same person He has always been.
Has He always been Lord, Judge, and Savior? Even before there was a Creation to be Lord, Judge, and Savior of?
He has ‘always’ been who He Is – God, who else could he be?

[steve7150]

Jesus always existed. The Son of God is an anthropomorphic term and is no different than Jesus being called the Rock, the Light, the Branch, The Savior, etc., even the Name Jesus may be a term reserved for the incarnation and things relative to humans, but without stumbling over all of His names - He is the same person He has always been.









Son of God is anthropomorphic? You are entitled to your opinion but in Luke 1.31-32 the word "shall" was used 4 times by the Angel who was representing God.
Shall means "from this moment on" which means that although the idea was always in the mind of God at least from the foundation of the world, the actual beginning of the Son was the incarnation.
Jesus always existed in a different form with a different name, but i do not see how he was the Son prior to the incarnation.

[jriccitelli]

George Washington wasn’t always the president, but he was ‘always’ himself, in fact he wasn’t ‘George’ till his mother named him.
That is the point: Jesus was ‘always Himself’. These are just different revelations of Him. He appeared as an Angel numerous times do we worry about which angel incarnation was which, or whether or not he was always a specific angel, or who birthed his angel body? He was the rock, was he a rock previously I don’t know, these are terms to understand our relation to Him, they do not mean his nature changes with each revelation or incarnation, Christophany, or undertaking.
Any ‘form’ He takes on will not change His nature.

[steve7150]

Any ‘form’ He takes on will not change His nature.











I didn't say he changed his nature , but i do think something did change in the incarnation. As the Angel said "and he SHALL be called Son of the most High." Luke 1.32

[jriccitelli]

Exactly: 'called'. That is when he was named, or 'became' as in a title (or maybe fulfilled). God has many 'names' and 'terms' to 'describe' Him so we may understand Him.
Yet didn't David and Isaiah 'call him' a son prior to his birth (I agree as to 'why' he was called a son).
Was God the Creator before He created?
Was He the beginning and the End before the End?

'Today a Savior has been born' (Luke). Was Jesus a Savior before he was born? Was He a Savior before he saved anyone?
Yet Jesus, or God always was Israels Savior, and there is no other Savior but Yahweh.

[Paidion]

Thank you Darin, for transcribing Steve's words from the radio show. I would like to offer my comments on each section, one at a time.

Darin's transcription of Steve's words:

…[Older translators] thought monogenes had to do with "generated" or "born" – but Greek scholars are now fairly in agreement that monogenes does not come from the word “begotten” or “born” – that monogenes just is a word that means "one and only," or "unique," so for example in John 3:16 (which many of us memorized as "his only begotten son") – modern translations will render it so that it says He gave his “one and only son.” Which is maybe not such a big difference, but since the JWs are referring to John 1:14 which says “we beheld His glory - the glory as of the only begotten (or the "one and only") of the Father. They are trying to make the issue that since Jesus was the “Son” of God (or the “begotten” of God), that He had a beginning and that he was a creation of God.

It is by no means clear that “monogenās” does not come from “gennaō” (generate, beget, produce). And there is absolutely no evidence that it is derived from “ginomai” (become) as the OLB Greek lexicon and Strong's lexicon affirm. Indeed the NAS lexicon and the Abbot-Smith Greek lexicon say that it is derived from “genos”. Now the lexicons say that “genos” is derived from “ginomai” But I think that that word actually was derived from “gennaō”. When I consider how it has been translated, I must come to that conclusion. Consider Acts 18:28.29 where every translation I know translates “genos” as “offspring” (except Phillips which renders it “children”) Paul is speaking to the Athenians, and says that we (as human beings) are the offspring of God. Now “offspring” have been generated, or begotten, or produced from a parent. The word “genos” also occurs in Acts 18:2 where Aquila is said to “born” (or generated) in Pontus (AV, NKJV, Douay) or “a native of Pontus” (EMTV, ESV, RSV, Murdoch, Phil, Williams). And of course, a “native” of Pontus is one who was born there. Some translate it as “a man of Pontus by race” (WEB, ASV, YLT). We can understand how the word became to be used in this way, for a race develops from a people group by being born. So the word was also used of a family. And since “race” could also be described as “a kind” of people, the word was later used to mean “kind” in a wider sense, even for things other than people (Mark 9:29, I Cor 10:4). But as I see it, the word “genos” was originally used of that which is generated (an English word whose origin is either from “genos” or “gennaō”).

There is another reason to believe that “monogenās” cannot mean “one and only”. In John 1:18, the expression “monogenās theos” occurs in the earliest manuscripts. It occurs in the only two extant manuscripts which date prior to 300 A.D.— Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75. Most modern NT scholars regard the original to have been “theos” (God) rather then “hwios” (son). But let's see what is affirmed in translations which recognize this.

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. ( John 1:18 ESV)

Or as some would have it, “the one and only God who is at the Father's side.”

Is Jesus the “one and only God” who is at the Father's side? If so, this seems odd when we consider that Jesus addressed His Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3). The only way both verses could be true (when John 1:18 is translated as above) would be if the Father and the Son were the same divine Individual. And that's modalism, not Trinitarianism. According to Trinitarianism, They are two divine Individuals.