I have been working on this since 6:00 am and it is nearly 3:00 !! Yikes !!!!. I have not read any of the email comments (I will get to tht later) Perhaps some or all of this has already been presented. Sorry if that is the case.
Please do not read this as coming from a want-to-be theologican. I am well aware of where I stand in relation to the great food chain of life. Neither am I writing with any purpose in mind other than sharing the "results" of an extended and personal study.
I am going to go have something to eat !!!!!
The Humble Bishop of Love,
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Knpraise
To: Knpraise
Sent: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:51:54 -0400
Subject: Re: A apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ
NOTES ON ETERNAL SONSHIP begun 6/24/05
Factors that play into this discussion:
Begotten (monogenhs -- monogenes)
Used five times : John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Heb 11:17; I Jo4:9
A second Gk word prototodos -- (Heb. 1:6; Rev 1:5 and translated "begotten" and "firstborn" respectively) -- will not be considered in this study.. Suffice it to say that the two Greek words are not the same and do not refer to the same "begetting.".
It should be noted that nowhere in JOHN is there reference to the virgin birth. This accounting of Christ's coming into the world is not considered by John in his apoplogetic It is John's assignment in this writing to present the startling message that the God of creation came to draw men unto Himself. It is not simply that Christ is the unique representative of the Good News. Rather, it is that He is the Good News. For the Apostle, this message only works because Christ is God Himself and John presents this claim in no uncertain terms within this thoughtful and ancient presentation. It is not that Jesus is born into Sonship or John would have more to say about the virgin birth, rather the point of emphasis is that He becomes flesh. For those who would consider "Christianity," their decision has nothing to do with the question of Representative allegiance. -- choosing between one represent
ative of "God" or another. Rather, the choice that is demanded with a reading of JOHN is the choice between accepting Christ Himself as the Great God Almighty into your life or not. It is as profoundly simple as that.
With all this in mind, we see the beginnings of this theme with the very first passage of the book. In 1:1-5, Jesus is presented as word, life and light - in a way uniquely different for any other consideration or claim. It is out of this "uniqueness" that John presents the Christ he loves and serves. "Uniqueness" as applied to Christ is one of the themes of this book of JOHN.
Because of this fact (assuming you agree), we see the Apostle establishing the uniqueness of Christ with the very beginnings of his letter. His introduction or perface reads from verse 1 through verse 18. It builds from one extraordinary fact , the Word, to another, Life and Light, to the final and most extraordinary consideration of all - His uniqueness as the Son of God and the eternal nature of that teaching.
Being the "Word" is one thing, as is being "God," being "Life," being "Light." How this can be? is another matter altogether. And John establishes an explanation to this question in the teaching of the eternal Sonship of Christ (v 14-18).
The word "unique" referred to above, is this word monogenes. Thayer (the lexicon) tells us the word means "single of its kind, only" and as it applies to Jesus as Son of God, one who has "no brethren."
A.T. Robertson offers no other discussion on "mongones" other than to argue its etymological uniqueness (no pun intended) as part of the NT and the LXX (p. 97, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament COPYRIGHT 1934 - a first edition IN THE THE LIBRARY OF JOHN DAVID SMITHSON purchased for the grand total of $35.00.)
Rogers and Rogers, Exegetical Key to the New Testatment, p, 177, addresses "begotten" (monogenes) with these words: "The word emphasizes the unique relationship that the Father has to the Son. It does not suggest the idea of begotten by one alone, by the one Father without the assistance of a mother. Instead, it suggests the unique position to the father and thus his unique ability to reveal th
e Father."
Note: In Lk 7:12, monogenes is used and gives us the revelation that the dead boy is the only child of the women (JD).
Merrill C. Tenney, Expositor's Bible Commentary, John, p 33, gives us this information: The "one and only Son" represents the Greek monogenes, which is derived from genos, which means "kind" or "species." It means literally "one of a kind," "only," "unique" (unicus), not "only-begotten." "The emphasis is on the thought that, as the "only" Son of God, He has no equal and is able fully to reveal the Father."
(If you skipped Tenney, above, go back and read it -- he is very agressive with his definition and his thinking mirrors the passion of this paper.)
Liddell and Scott (the lexicon) presents monogenes as "one of a kind; having only one child." This lexicon is significant to me in that it is much more than a biblical-Greek lexicon, offering linguistic definition of the common language of the day. John's use of the word, therefore, would be read with the same understanding (by the everyday sloth) as is detailed above.
RCH Lenski, an extraordinary scholar of the late 19th century cautions us against the use of the word ("begotten" monogenes) as referencing the virgin birth. It is not that Christ became something different in nature and essence, but that he became something that He was not before -- flesh. Thank you, RC!!
We must understand, then, that Christ, as the Son of God, is the word, the life and the light to this world. How is it that that this Word was God and was with God in the same moment of time? This question is almost forced upon the reader in the opening words of John's preface - it is answered in no uncertain terms with the closing words of the preface (v. 14 - 18).
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the [only Son] of the Father, full of grace and truth. John [the Baptist] bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, 'This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.' And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace [an exchange of the grace of the Law for the grace of God Himself in the Son - JD]. For the law was given through Moses, but [a contrast - JD] grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The [only] Son, who is [who exists , whose very being is -- JD] into [eis] the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."
In the following, you have my understanding of John 1:14-18. I make no pretense at enlisting the commentary of those quoted above. Judy, here is the argument for eternal Sonship from JD. I only wish my words could do justice to the teaching.
Christ is presented, even in becoming flesh, as having the glory of God !!! ---- the "glory of the Father" cannot be understood in other terms by believers. If you miss this point - allow me to restate in this wise: the phrase "the glory as of the only Son of the Father" is equal to "the glory of the Father," or "the glory of God Himself." "The glory .. as of the Father" is not a result of the becoming - it is the associated aspect of being God [ even in the flesh]; it is a beholding of a glory already present - the glory as of the Father! Just as the Father's glory predates "becoming flesh," so is the glory of Christ as Son -- for they are one and the same glory. We do not have the glory of Christ AND the glory of the Father --- rather there is but one "glory" and the Son is a
part of the eternity and singleness of this glory ----------------- MAKING HIM UNIQUE!!!!!
Not enough attention has been given to this "glory," I think. In John, chapters 5 and 10, we see that those who opposed Him understood that Christ's claim to be the Son of God made Him equal to God -- made Him God in fact !!!!! The claim of Sonship, then, is understood by those of His era to be attached to the very idea of being God, the very God of the Jews, who is, of course, eternal and predates all realities. There is a glory that is associated with being God, with being eternal, that is unique -- simply because it is the glory of God. In this text (1: 14-18) Christ, AS THE SON shares in this very glory.and is, therefore, the eternal Son of God.
Christ poses a question about the credibility of the search for God when He challenges the Jewish leadership with this question: " How can you believe when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" ( John 5:44). He follows this question with, yet, another remarkable statement of fact : " ..... if you believed in Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me? (v 46).
In "monogenes," we have a word expressing the fact that Christ is the one and only Son of God -- making Himself equal to God. Christ mirrors this very implied etymological reality with those very words as recorded in 5:44-46 ( ........ you do not seek the glory of the one and only ............ ) for HE IS THE ONE AND ONLY -------.. GOD. As Son of God, He IS God (John 5:18 - [the Jewish leadership, to their meager credit, did get something right] .) We should never loose sight of that revelation. As Son, He shares in the same eternity and glory. When we separate Christ from this eternity, we are left with on who is but a man !!!! His claims can have no greater influence in our lives than those of Mohammed if this be true.
How can this be???????? What is there in His relationship with the Father that makes His Sonship a shared existence with God - complete with the same glory and eternity? It is because His existence as the unique Son is in (eis) the bosom of the Father. In the words of Christ "I and my Father are one," we have the truth of John 1:18 revealed.
When Jesus says "I and my Father are one," He speaks as the Son and lays claim to all that is unique to the Father's realty. How can it be any other way?
JD
