Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech

[Bill Taylor]

David writes > Are you aware that this same word "monogenes" translated as "only begotten" in passages like John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18 is also used to talk about Abraham's son Isaac in Heb. 11:17?   Yes, David. I am aware of that. When this word is used in Scripture, it carries with it the idea of miraculous. And so, every time it is used to speak of a physical birth, that birth is miraculous. This of course includes Isaac's birth, from the "dead" womb of Sarah. In these instances it also conveys the idea of promise. God had "promised" Abram a son. Likewise he had also promised the incarnation of his own Son. Hence the word carries also the idea of uniqueness: Isaac is the uniquely born son of Abraham; Jesus the same of God.   The "mono" of this word is of course the derivation of the "only" of "only begotten." It is also the thrust of the use of "begotten" in reference to Isaac. In other words, it is not in Ishmael, the natural born son, that the promise finds fulfillment. The promise finds fulfillment in the one and only miraculously born son of Abraham.   It is from this miraculous/prophetic/unique thrust of monogenes that the "not made" takes its meaning. It is always FROM God -- NOT made.   Strangely enough (?), this word is also used as a designation of children who had died and were miraculously raised from the dead (see Luk 7.12-15 & 8.42-55).   On another occasion this word is used in the identification of a child miraculously delivered out of demonic possession (Luk 9.38).   And so we see that this word does indeed find usage in reference to others than Jesus only. Nevertheless, David (and I'm sure this will not surprise you :>), this does not negate the "eternal" aspect of the DIVINE Son. As miraculous as the birth of Isaac was, his father was still human, i.e., finite and temporal. The Father of our Lord Jesus is neither. When God begets his Son, this Son does not have a human father; that Father is Divine (thus the eternal/temporal tension in that which is known in theological jargon as the hypostatic union -- the Son of God is fully God, the Son of Mary is fully human, hence the God-man. But) The point is, there is nothing temporal about Divine: the divine Son has no beginning -- he is God; he is eternal. While the human Son of Mary had beginning-ness, the divine Son did not. He is the eternal Son: monogenes in that the birth is miraculous; monogenes in that it is of promise; monogenes in that it is unique; and monogenes in that this is the ONLY DIVINE Son -- hence eternally monogenes.   As per your reference to Gill: It occurs to me that Calvinists have to limit -- read diminish -- the scope and significance of the resurrection. When Gill casts the miraculous (hence "monogenes" out of death, victorious over demonic) thrust of the resurrection back upon the virgin birth, he is holding true to form. My (highly rhetorical) question for you, David, being the dyed in the baby-not-torah blue J Arminian that you are, is why are you so willing to make the same error in judgment as your Calvinistic brother?   Sincerely, your brother,   Bill    ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech > Bill Taylor wrote: > > ... I see the significance of an eternal Father/Son relationship. > > If you are willing to concur that that is the kind of relationship > > the Father and The Word had throughout, then I fail to see > > your hang up with calling it a Father/Son relationship. > > My hang-up is primarily on Psalm 2:7 saying, "this day have I begotten > thee," but also with the fact that the many references in Scripture pointing > to Jesus as the son of God all point to his existence in the flesh as the > son of man.  Luke 1:35 also adds weight to my reluctance in that the angel > speaks in future tense that Yeshua would be called the son of God because of > the work of the Holy Spirit in creating the child within Mary.  I realize > that this might seem pedantic to some, but I do think having the proper > terminology and perspective that lines up with the entire Word of God is > helpful for keeping us pure in our understanding of things divine. > > If it is true that the testimony of Scripture is that Yeshua became a son at > his birth from Mary, then it does open up the consideration of a different > level of relationship with the father in the past. It may be that his > becoming son was a very significant event, more than what might be > understood if the eternal sonship doctrine is held. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > ... the word "begotten" means in part "not made." > > Are you aware that this same word "monogenes" translated as "only begotten" > in passages like John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18 is also used to talk about > Abraham's son Isaac in Heb. 11:17? > > Adam Clarke is a theologian who takes Judy's position in this.  He is pretty > insistent that Jesus was not ever begotten except in the sense of his birth > to Mary.  Can you explain how "begotten" means in part "not made"?  Is this > concept something well established in the language, or is this some further > tweaking of the words in order to make the text fit the viewpoint of eternal > sonship?  (Sincerely asking, guys.  Please don't try and read between the > lines what you think I might be trying to say.). > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. >