(This is an excerpt from the book, Studies in the Usage of the Greek Word Μονογενής, available on this website.)
“Only-begotten” vs. “One of a Kind”
An Assumption
This is an assumption, so let me again state that I believe there is absolute evidence that the translation of “monogenes” as “Only-begotten is the correct translation, even if –genes comes from genos. But let presuppose for the sake of argument that those who deny it are right. What does it then teach us according to Scripture?
A common statement heard today among those who deny the eternal generation of the Son from the Father is that the word monogenes is mistranslated as “Only-Begotten” in such versions as the KJV, NKJV, ASV, and NASB. Consequently, the translation of this word has been changed to “One and Only” in such Bibles as the NIV or to “One of a Kind” in such paraphrases as the Message.
Such Christians contend that godly men for over two millennia have misunderstood the meaning of the word and that modern scholars have now discovered its true meaning. They state that the problem was that for most of church history men erroneously thought the suffix -genes was related to the word gennao which means to begat, rather than being related to genos which means “kind” or “class.” Now, forgetting the fact, that such is not the case – (many scholars, who preferred to see genes as related to genos, still believed it should be translated as “only-begotten,”)[1] – let us look at what Scripture reveals if we “assume” that such an assertion is true.
This is an important exercise because this new view is being supported and taught by more and more Christians, and is usually combined with the denial of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. Indeed, I am afraid the real reason for their new understanding of monogenes has less to do with any new linguistic data, but has more to do, in some cases, with their need to marginalize the doctrine of eternal generation.
And what is sad is this wholesale conversion of the modern Christian to this new way of thinking is being aided by the acceptance of such newer versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET and a multitude of other paraphrases as the Message, Contemporary English Version, etc. which Christians do not know are misleading. And the greater tragedy of this all is that many Christians do not know that such a view destroys the unity of the Godhead and actually contradicts the Historic Christian Faith.
Now to be fair, such teachers think they are protecting the deity of the Lord by their denial of the eternal generation of the Son, but, beloved, this betrays a lack of true Trinitarian understanding, and actually leads destroys the truth of the eternal relations.
The doctrine of the eternal generation does not lessen the deity of our Lord or reduce the nature of his Person. Instead, the doctrine actually strengthens the Lord’s deity and shows him to be equal to the Father. It shows that true equality is understood by order and submission, not by a mutual autocracy. Consequently, in contradiction to this new mindset, the terms Father and Son are revelatory and do show forth the primacy of the Father within the Godhead.
The doctrine of eternal generation has always been confessed by godly men throughout the history of the church, and this new view, which is being silently foisted upon the unsuspecting Christian by Neo-Trinitarians, has actually always been considered a grievous error.
Consider the testimony of John Gill in his treatise,A Dissertation Concerning The Eternal Sonship of Christ, Showing By Whom It Has Been Denied and Opposed, and By Whom Asserted and Defended in All Ages of Christianity:
“Upon the whole, setting aside the said persons, the testimonies for and against the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ stand thus:
For Eternal Generation, etc.
“Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory of Neocaesaria, Dionysius of Alexandria, the three hundred and eighteen Nicene Fathers; Athanasius, Alexander bishop of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Hilary, Faustinus, Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, Ruffinus, Cyril of Jerusalem, besides the many hundreds of bishops and presbyters assembled at different times and in different places, as at Syrmium, Antioch, Arminum, Seleucia, and Constantinople, and elsewhere;
Augustine, Chrysostom, Leo Magnus, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Paulinus, Flavianus, Victor, Maximus Tauriensis, six hundred and thirty fathers in the council at Chalcedon; Fulgentius, Gregory Furnensis, Fortunatus, Cassiodorus, Gregorius Magnus, the many bishops in the several councils at Toletum, the Roman synod of a hundred and twenty-five under Agatho, Damascene, Beda, Albinus, and the fathers in the council of Frankfort, with many others in later times, and all the sound Divines and evangelic churches since the reformation.”
Against It,
“Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and Ebion, and their respective followers; Carpocrates and the Gnostick, Valentinus, Theodotus the currier, Artemon, and others their associates; Beryllus of Bostra, Praxeas, Hermogenes, Noetus and Sabellius, the Samosatenians, Arians, Aetians, Eunomians and Photinians, the Priscillianists and Bonotians; Mohammed and his followers; the Socinians and Remonstrants; and all Anti-trinitarians.
“Now since it appears that all the sound and orthodox writers have unanimously declared for the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ in all ages, and that those only of an unsound mind and judgment…have declared against it, such must be guilty of great temerity and rashness to join in an opposition with the one against the other; and to oppose a doctrine the Church of God has always held, and especially being what the scriptures abundantly bear testimony unto, and is a matter of such moment and importance, being a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, and indeed what distinguishes it from all other religions, from those of Pagans, Jews and Mohammedans, who all believe in God, and generally in one God, but none of them believe in the Son of God: that is peculiar to the Christian religion.”[2]
And bringing it up to modern times we could add to John Gill’s list the following Christians who are for eternal generation and those who are against eternal generation. The spiritual warfare continues.
For Eternal Generation:
Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Gill, J. C. Philpot, J. G. Bellett, Dean Burgon, Franbz Delitzsch, Henry Alford, C.H.Spurgeon, Andrew Murry, Robert Jamieson, R.C.H. Lenski, A. T. Robertson, Louis Berkhoff, W. H. Griffith Thomas, Henry C. Thiessen, D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones, H.A. Ironside, C.S. Lewis, A. W. Tozer, Kenneth Wuest, John Walvoord, Henry Morris, and William MacDonald.
Against Eternal Generation:
J. Oliver Buswell, Lorraine Boetner, Mark Driscoll, Millard Erickson,Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, Walter Martin, Robert Reymond.
Needless to say eternal generation has always been part of the Historic Christian Faith; the Lord Jesus Christ was considered to be the Eternal Son of God, begotten before all time, being known as the “Only-Begotten” Son of God. To be against this doctrine is a departure of the Historic Christian Faith.
Nevertheless, let’s assume that the modern scholars are right and that –genes of monogenes is related to genos and not gennao. Does it change anything regarding the doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation from the Father? No! Absolutely not, although, Neo-Trinitarians would like one to think it does negate the doctrine. Nor does it change the fact that monogenes can still be understood as only-begotten or only born.
You see, the real problem is not the grammar or the linguistic etymology of the word. The problem is that many modern Christian teachers today have departed from this aspect of the Historic Christian Faith, and are not willing to admit such departure because it might call into question their orthodoxy before men. Instead, they are re-interpreting the Faith to support their viewpoint, and are changing the meaning of this word in order to facilitate this transformation of the Faith. The net result is that a cloud of darkness is descending upon the minds of unsuspecting Christians, obscuring a precious truth of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Listen to what the Historic Christian Faith has always said about this truth of our Saviour. The Nicene Creed says this –
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten of His Father before all time, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became Man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended unto the heavens and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceeded from the Father, who with Father and Son is worshipped together.”[3]
In modern times, one has the example of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which affirmed the same truth and declared it this way:
“In the unity of the Godhead there be Three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.”[4]
Or the well-known Baptist Confession of Faith, which stated:
“In this Divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, (I John v.7; Matt. xxviii, 19; II Cor. X111. 14) the Father, the Word (or Son), and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each have the whole Divine essence, yet the (Exod. iii. 14; John xiv. 11; I Cor. vii. 6) essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is (John I. 14,18) eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit (John xv. 26; Gal. Iv. 6) proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore, but one God.”[5]
We could go on, but let is suffice to state that all major Protestant Confessions and Statement of Faiths have always affirmed the same truth. (e. g. Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, Ausburg Confession, Belgic Confession, etc.)
In other words, the Historic Christian Faith has always held that the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all time and as such was known as the Only-begotten (monogenes) Son of God.
Now let me repeat the original premise of this paper. “I believe there is absolute evidence that the translation of monogenes as Only-begotten is the correct translation, even if –genes comes from genos. But let presuppose for the sake of argument that those who deny it are right. What does it then teach us according to Scripture?” Does it nullify the doctrine of eternal generation?
To answer that question let’s take the paragraph that I wrote two paragraphs above and substitute the new understanding of monogenes in the summarizing sentence concerning the Historic Christian Faith.
I wrote: “In other words, the Historic Christian Faith has always held that the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all time and as such was known as the Only-begotten (monogenes) Son of God.”
Now let’s substitute the new meaning.
“In other words, the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all time and as such was known as the One and Only (monogenes) Son or God.”
Or,
“In other words, the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all timeand as such was known as the One of a Kind (monogenes) Son of God.”
Does it change the fact that the Son was begotten by the Father before all time? No! It simply changes his title from “Only-begotten Son” to “One and Only Son.”
However, many Christians do not realize this and they are not being told that this new semantic twist on the Greek word monogenes doesn’t really change the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father at all! Instead, they are being assured that the new understanding does change the doctrine. But the Neo-Trinitarian teachers are forgetting some important facts.
First, they are forgetting the revelatory word “Son. The word “Son of God” is used approximately 46 times in the New Testament. You see, the idea of generation is still included in the title “one and only Son,” because of the revelatory word “Son.”
However, Neo-Trinitarians will usually tell you the word “Son” is used as a Semitic idiom that has more to do with “purpose,” “nature,” “character,” or member of a trade or class,” rather than bespeaking “generation.” They imply that the word “Son” is used in the sense of His office within the Divine economy, rather than the subsistence of nature.
For instance, this Semitic idiom is used in such phrases as “son of perfumers” in Neh. 3:8 NKJV, or “sons of the prophets” in I Kings 20:35. Now, I agree this speaks of character. For instance, the phrase “son of the prophets” would refer to one who had the character of the prophets, or was a member of the prophetic class, or took on the prophetic office, and not necessarily meaning he was a literal son of a prophet. However, one needs to notice one thing in this idiom, when it is used with this connotation, it almost always used in the plural. It is plural, “sons of the prophets,” not singular, “son of a prophet.” If it was singular and read “son of a prophet,” one would understand it was referring to a literal son of prophet.
When it is plural it can be used in an idiomatic manner, when it is singular it is normally used in its derivative manner. And so, when it comes to the usage associated with our Lord, guess what, it is always used in the singular. Scripture says “Son of God,” not that He was of the “sons of the God.” It is not being used in the above mentioned idiomatic manner when referring to our Lord.
The term “Son of God” is not telling the reader that the Son is Divine, with no derivative relationship to God, like the idiom “son of the prophets” tells the reader that one has the characteristics of the prophets, without implying such a one was literally born of a prophet. No, it is being used to tell the reader the Son is Divine because he is “of” God. He is Divine because he has a special derivative relationship to God who is Divine. He is Divine because he is eternally begotten from God the Father who is properly Divine. He is literally the Son “of” God.
Next the word “son” in the Bible is sometimes used in the sense of possessing a certain characteristic as “son of valor” (I Sam 14:52 Young’s Literal Translation). This means the person was courageous. It is true this idiom carries no idea of generation.
However, this idiom is never used of our Lord in the New Testament. It is used only few times in the New Testament in such places as – Luke 10:6, which calls a certain one a “son of peace,” John 17:12 which calls Judas the “son of perdition,” Acts 4:36 which calls Barnabas a “son of encouragement,” etc.. It is never used of the Lord.
The term, that is used over and over for our Lord, is the term “Son of God,” and “Son of Man.” These terms are not used with the Semitic meanings above. They are used in the normal sense of derivation. Christ is the Son “of” God, meaning he is “of” God, or from God the Father. It is used in the same sense when Christ is stated to be the son “of” David, or son “of” Abraham.
When Matthew uses that terminology in his genealogy in Matt. 1:1, he is telling us that Christ was a descendent of David and of Abraham. His humanity was “derived” from them. He was humanly “generated” from them through the virgin Mary. Christ is said to be born of the seed of David (Rom. 1:3). He proceeded forth from David. When Christ posed the following question to the Pharisees, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" They replied, "The Son of David." (Mat 22:42 NKJV). They understood sonship in its normal sense, as did our Lord. It carried no idiomatic meaning. Christ was using the phrase, “whose Son is He,” in a non-idiomatic manner.
And so we see the revelatory word “Son,” chosen by the Holy Spirit, bespeaks derivation, and this explains why Christ is known as the “Son of Man.” Yes, no doubt it was used as a Messianic title reminding us of the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13, and yes it also reminds us of Ezekiel’s title son of man, but those titles were titles that spoke of derivation and humiliation. Daniel was also called son of man (Dan. 8:17), and, of course, Ezekiel was called son of man, but these were titles given to men who saw great visions and mighty angels of God. They were given this title to remind them that they were simply “men,” made lower than angels (Ps. 8:4-5). They were being reminded that they were simply from Adam their father. They were not powerful angels, but humble men, who should not be lifted up by their great visions. It reminds us of Paul’s humiliation after he also saw great visions (II Cor. 12:1-7).
And so, when we come to this title of our Lord, we are reminded of His humiliation (Phil. 2:7-8) and His derivation from the first Man. He is the Son of Man because he literally was the “Son of Adam (Man).” (Remember, “Adam” is many times translated simply as “man,” for he was the first Man). Christ not only took on the “seed of Abraham” (Heb. 2:16), he, obviously, also took on the seed of Adam, for Christ was the promised “seed,” (Genesis 3:15).
Christ not only had to be “of” God, being consubstantial with God, in order to secure our salvation, he also had to be “of” Man, being consubstantial (in a limited way) with Man in order to save our souls. That is why he is the only one who can save mankind. He is the Son of God, as to his Deity, because he proceeded from God (Jn. 8:42), and the Son of Man as to his humanity, because he proceeded from Adam (Luke 3:23-38).
If one disagrees and believes the term “Son of Man” is simply an idiom bespeaking his humanity, such a one cannot ignore that such an idiom is based upon a biblical reality. He literally took upon himself the likeness of sinful flesh by being “of” Mary, “of” David, “of” Abraham, “of” Eve, and ultimately, as Luke 3:38 says, “of” Adam (Man).
Moreover, when it comes to the word “Son” in the revelatory term “Son of God,” and some say it does carry the normal meaning of generation, in other words, being begotten of God, but is rather used in in an idiomatic manner simply indicating one’s nature, they must understand that they are denying a doctrine that has always been considered orthodox and part of the Historic Christian Faith.
They do not realize that if the Son has the nature of God, ungenerate, meaning He was not begotten of God, but still considered Divine for his nature is like God, they are in reality teaching Semi-Arianism. In this case, Christ could only be of “like substance” or nature (homoiousios) with the Father, but not the same substance (homoousios) of the Father, which is the orthodox viewpoint. If one has the Divine substance eternally without generation, such a one cannot have the “same” substance. They are not truly consubstantial. They only have “like substance.”
Now, truly, it may be still be a Divine substance, but it is a divided substance. In other words, the Father has a substance that is Divine, the Son has a substance that is Divine, and the Holy Spirit has a substance that is Divine – three Divine substances. That is not biblical “consubstantiality.” And if they are not consubstantial, one simply has a triad and not the Trinity. This is the danger of this new way of thinking. The ultimate result is Tritheism, the belief in three Gods.
Moreover, that fact that the above point is fallacious is shown by the fact that Christ is not simply called the “Son of God,” (meaning “Divine” according to their scenario, apart from all generation, a simple Semitic idiom not meant to convey derivation), he is also specifically called the “Son of the Father” in II John 1:3.
The phrase “Son of the Father” could never be called a Semitic idiom. John in his epistle is specifically affirming that he is “of” the Father, in the sense of derivation. He is Divine because he was begotten or eternally generated of the Father, and as such received in that eternal begetting or generation, the “same substance” of God the Father without diminution or division. He is God because he is “of” the Father. He is God because he is “of” God. This is what the phrase “very God of very God” means in the Churches earliest standardized “Statement of Faith” – the Nicene Creed.
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten of His Father before all time, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made.”
The apostle John clearly tells us that Christ is the “Son of the Father,” and the normal and plain meaning of the phrase, Son of the Father, means one who is begotten by the other.
Remember, the apostle John had his hands full with heretical teachers and Gnostics who continually distorted the true faith. I do not think that the apostle John would create more problems for himself by introducing “sloppy language” concerning the nature of Christ.
That would be all he would need! Just imagine, he would be saying to himself, “Because I was careless in my language, some people are actually thinking I meant the Son was “begotten” by the Father!” “How could I have been so careless in my language?” “If I had only been clearer in what I wrote.”[6]
That would be absurd to think that John would make such a statement or make such a mistake and create such a mess for himself. No, John meant just what he said, Christ was the “Son of the Father,” and when one accepts that plain language of John, one has no problem with “eternal generation,” for if he was generated by the Father, when did that occur? John would not think it occurred in some distant time, for that would contradict what he said in John 1:1. So in John’s mind when did that generation occur? He would say in eternity because he would know the prophetic Scripture of Micah 5:2, which says his “goings forth” were from everlasting.
In addition, even the demons understood this meaning of derivation. The demons in Mark 5:7 specifically called him the “Son of the Most High God.” Remember, one of the first rules of hermeneutics is to follow the plain and literal sense of the text, unless the context indicates otherwise. They knew who Jesus was. The plain sense means he was the “Son,” in its normal meaning, of the Most High God. He was the eternal Son of God by eternal generation. All normal understanding of language would mean he came from God. He was generated by God. Even the demons knew this. They knew he was God for he was eternally “of” God.
This is the revelatory word that the Holy Spirit applies to the second Person of the blessed Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not trying to fool us. Revelation is for the purpose of understanding. The Second Person of the Trinity is called Son because he was begotten from the first Person of the Trinity – the Father from all of eternity. The words “Father” and “Son” are revelatory words given to us by Holy Spirit to teach us ontological relationships within the Trinity.
They have been understood in this way from the earliest times of the Church, and it is only lately that a new connotation has been given to these two revelatory words. The word “Son” carries its normal meeting when used of our Lord, whether it is the phrase “Son of God,” “Son of the Father,” Son of Man,” “Son of David,” “Son of Abraham,” or “Son of the Most High God.” They all bespeak derivation of a son from a father, and in these cases, the eternal derivation of the Son, from an eternal Father.
Secondly, they are forgetting the main connotation of genos. When they state that –genes, in monogenes, should be understood as being related to genos and not gennao, and that, as such, genos means “kin,” “kind,” or “class,” they are not giving the reader all varied meanings of genos, let alone the underliying meaning of “kin,” as we will demonstrate later.
You see, dear reader, genos means more than “kind,” or “class,” it also means “offspring.” In fact, which you will never hear from those who seek to negate the meaning of only-begotten, “class” or “kind” is a minor meaning! The major meaning carries a sense of “derivation” and “birth,” (which remains even in the minor meaning). But they will never tell you this. It is wrong to suggest that monogenes can only be rendered as “one or only,” or “one of a kind,” it could also be rendered as “only offspring,” which brings us right back to the original meaning of “only-begotten.” If one is an “only offspring,” one must be by definition “only-begotten.”
Let me list below all the verses that contain the word genos as recorded in the New Testament and one will be able to see all the varied meanings. All verses are from the King James Version.
Matt. 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind (genos)
Matt. 17:21 Howbeit this kind (genos) goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Mk. 7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation (genos) and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
Mk. 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind (genos) can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
Acts 4:6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred (genos) of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
Acts 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country (genos) of Cyprus,
Acts 7:13 And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph’s kindred (genos) was made known unto Pharaoh.
Acts 7:19 The same dealt subtilly with our kindred (genos)and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.
Acts 13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock (genos)of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring (genos).
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring (genos)of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Acts 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born (genos)in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born (genos)at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
1Cor. 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds (genos) of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
1Cor. 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities (genos)of tongues.
1Cor. 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds (genos)of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
2Cor. 11:26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen (genos), in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
Gal. 1:14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation (genos), being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Phil. 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock (genos)of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
1Pet. 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation (genos), a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring (genos) of David, and the bright and morning star.
When we read these verses we notice that it is used twenty-one times in the New Testament and is translated as follows in the KJV – kind 3, offspring 3, kindred 3, kinds 2, nation 2, stock 2, born 2, diversities 1, country 1, countrymen 1 and generation 1.
Notice that genos is understood as “offspring” in such verses as Acts 17:28; Acts 17:29; and Rev. 22:16. If –genes, in monogenes, should be understood by genos and not gennao, as we are being told, and in the above listed verses it is clear that genos means “offspring,” why then does not the Neo-Trinitarian translate monogenes as “Only Offspring?” The reason is because the etymology of monogenes is not the real issue. The real reason is that they reject the doctrine of eternal generation, and they are attempting to discredit the doctrine by altering the meaning of monogenes. As was mentioned at the beginning of this paper, there is ample evidence that monogenes should be translated as “only-begotten.” But, even, if we grant them their viewpoint that it should not be translated in that way, they are still not translating the word by its majority meaning.
Let me give you another example. Rev. 22:16 reads, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring (genos) of David, and the bright and morning star.” How does our Lord use the word “genos?” Does he use it as “kind” with no sense of derivation? He uses it in the sense of derivation, or generation. He calls himself the “Genos” (Offspring) of David. Christ, according to Scripture was literally descended from David (Rom. 1:3; II Tim. 2:8).
Therefore, if Christ uses the word genos with a connotation of generation, why do they reject that connotation of the word when the Holy Spirit uses that same source word in monogenes when speaking of the Son’s begotteness from God the Father (i.e. according to their claim)?
Even if we accept their presupposition regarding the source of –genes, in monogenes, the Holy Spirit is still telling the world that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Offspring (monogenes) of the Father.” Genos, in the Lord’s mind and in the Holy Spirit’s mind, carried the sense of derivation and generation. Why does not the Neo-Trinitarian speak of this?
Let’s continue. It is understood as “born” in Acts 18:2 and Acts 18:24 (could not one say, then, he should be understood as the “Only Born Son?” For God so loved the world that he gave His “Only Born”(monogenes) Son.”
And it is understood as “stock” in Acts 13:26 and Phil. 3:5. All these uses give the idea of “begotteness,” “generation” or “derivation” and still support the doctrine of eternal generation.
Or let us take such verses as Acts 4:6; Acts 7:13, and Acts 7:19, which translate the word as “kindred.” It also carries the idea of “generation,” or “derivation.” One cannot be “of” the same kindred unless he has proceeded, been generated, or descended from a common ancestor. Why is this not brought out by Neo-Trinitarians?
The simple answer to both those questions is because the primary meaning of genos is not “kind” or “class,” but rather “descendant,” “nation,” or “offspring.”
Now, let us look as those few verses in the New Testament where it is translated “kind,” (which is the primary definition they adopt for genos). It is translated as kind in three verses – Matt. 13:47; Matt. 17:21; Mark 9:29. In two of the verses it is used with the sense of “kind” or “class” without any obvious sense of derivation – Matt. 17:21 and Mark 9:29. Yet one still finds the underlying sense of derivation when one understands the common Jewish concept concerning the origin of demons.
At the time of Christ the standard Jewish viewpoint concerning the origin of demons was that they were the offspring of fallen angels and women. Therefore, one could translate the phrase as “this offspring, or this stock, can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting.”
Merrill Unger mentions this interpretation in his book on Biblical Demonology.
“This very ancient theory, which goes back at least to the second century before Christ, if not earlier, maintains that the sons of God (bene-ha’elohim) of Genesis 6:2 are angels, who, cohabiting with mortal women, produced a monstrous progeny, the demons, born at once of spirits and of flesh. The locus classicus in the apocryphal Book of Enoch runs thus:
Wicked spirits came out of the body of them (i.e., of the women), for they were generated out of human beings, and from the holy watchers (angels) flows the beginning of their creation and their primal foundation. The spirits of heaven – in the heaven is their dwelling, and the spirits begotten upon earth – in the earth shall be their dwelling. And the spirits of the gaints will devour, oppress, destroy, assault, do battle, and cast upon the earth and cause convulsions.”[7]
He then continues and speaks of those who support such a view.
“But the “angel theory” is also supported by an equal, if not a more imposing list of expositors, demonstrating that difficulties of no little moment are encountered by both theories, and both have, at least some Scriptural grounds for support to enlist so many able advocates…Very decidedly it is presented in the Book of Enoch, as noted, and in the so-called ‘Minor Genesis,’ also by Philo, Josephus, and most of the rabbinical writers, as well as by the oldest Church Fathers – Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius. Thought Chrysostom, Augustine, and Theodoret contended zealously against it, and in the dark ages it fell into disfavor, it was espoused by Luther, and by a galaxy of moder exegetes – Koppen, Twesten, Dreschler, Hofmann, Baumgarten, Delitzsch, W. Kelly, A. C. Gaebelein, and others.”[8]
And so we see that genos in this verse is still being used in its normal sense of offspring or stock, but, obviously, this sense is not readily seen in most English translations and is based upon one’s interpretation of the text.
However, in the third verse it is readily seen, because it is plainly used in the sense of species – Matt. 13:47. Amazing! Even in the verses where it is translated by the word they want to adopt for genes – the word “kind,” it still, carries the obvious sense of “generation” or “derivation.” But you will not hear this important point mentioned.
Let us look closely at that one verse. Matt. 13:47 speaks of every “kind” of fish being gathered in a net. Different species of fish are of the same “kind” because they have descended from the first species God created long ago, whom he told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters (Gen. 1:21-22). God created everything after its own “kind.” Everything has “proceeded” or been “generated” from those first creatures. “Kind” in this verse refers to species, and if one is not of the same “kind,” one cannot procreate. This third use of “kind” obviously is understood through the concept of “generation.” A fish cannot be of that kind, unless it was generated!
The only other instance out of these 21 verses where it is translated as kind, or actually kinds, and the sense of derivation is not readily seen is in I Cor. 12:10, I Cor. 12:28 and I Cor. 14:10. Yet, in these three verses the underlying sense of “derivation,” is still found, since languages are divided according one’s birth. One speaks the language of one’s kind or kindred so that one still finds some sense of “derivation” within the word. “Kinds” of tongues would mean languages based upon one’s kind. It would indicate the different languages of one’s birth. Tongues is used with this thought in Rev. 7:9.
Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; KJV
As there are different nations, kindreds and peoples based upon one’s birth, so there are different tongues based upon one’s kind or birth. Therefore, a perfectly fine translation of these verses would as follows:
1 Corinthians 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another kindred tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, kindred tongues.
1 Corinthians 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kindred voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
This use genos with the genitive would fall under the category, of what Daniel Wallace calls, the attributed genitive.[9]
This is all the more significant when we realize that all languages are descended from those few languages created by God at the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-7). And in one sense, depending on how one defines the word “confound” or “confuse” in Gen. 11:7, they are all descended from the one common language of the earth at the beginning of our history (Gen. 11:1). In fact, the LXX uses the same word in Gen. 11:1 that is used by Paul in I Cor. 14:10, the word φωνή.
So, in these last remaining instances where genos in translated in English by “kinds” we still see the connotation of derivation.
All the other references such as “nation” (Gal. 1:14), “generation” (I Pet. 2:9), or “stock” (Phil. 3:5) all carry the sense of “offspring,” “generation,” or “derivation.”
And so out of all the usages of genos in the New Testament only 5 are used with no obvious sense of “offspring” or “derivation,” (although that sense is still there with its basal meaning). 16 are used in such a way that the word carries the obvious sense of “derivation” in its usage, meaning over 75% of the usages of the word carry the outward sense of “offspring” or “derivation.” Why then do Neo-Trinitarians say that because the -genes in monogenes is associated with genos and not gennao, it negates the sense of generation, derivation, or begotteness? Why do they claim it nullifies the doctrine of eternal generation? They are not being forthright with their listeners and/or readers for they are leaving out the important connotation of the word, and are emphasizing a minor connotation of genos (kind or type) that obscures its basal meaning, over the primary connotation of genos (derivation) that clearly manifest its basal meaning.
Let’s look at one last verse that uses genos, because of all the verses of genos this verse succinctly explains the truth of John’s use of monogenes in John 1:14, 18, (assuming the reading “Son” as in the NKJV, and not “God” in verse 18).
Acts 13:26 Men and brethren, children(sons) of the stock (genos) of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
In this verse Paul speaks of those “descended” of Abraham. He speaks to those sons who were of the “stock” (genos) of Abraham, in other words, his offspring, his seed. The word speaks of “derivation” from Abraham. So even if we use the understanding of the word genes (from genos) as “stock” in monogenes when speaking of the Son of God, would we not be speaking of the “derivation” of the Son from his Father, as Paul he uses the word to speak of the “derivation” of the sons of Israel from their father, Abraham?
Would it not be saying that the Son was of the “stock,” of the Father? Most certainly! Indeed, He was not only of the “stock” of the Father, he was “of” the “same” “stock” of the Father. This teaches us a very important truth.
In the book of Genesis we are told God created everything “after its kind” (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24 and 25). Every species is of the same kind and thus possesses the same nature. This is a revelatory picture of a precious truth within the Godhead, albeit in a limited way (please see footnote below).[10]
In the Godhead, if you will, there are three of the same “kind,” or “stock” – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As the sons of Israel are of the same stock (genos) as their father Abraham, so too the Son and the Holy Spirit[11] are of the same stock as the Father. No one else in the entire universe is of the “same stock” as the Father, except the Son and the Holy Spirit. In Nicene Creed this is called “homoousios” meaning of the same substance or in today’s terminology consubstantial. And since the Father eternally communicates this substance, without diminution, to the second Person of the Blessed Trinity in his eternal begetting, he is known as the “Only-begotten,” or (because we assuming, for the sake of argument, the association of -genes with genos) the “Only Offspring Son,” Only Born Son,” “Only Stock Son” of the Father’s begetting.
Consequently, one can clearly see, that the word monogenes still is understood by a sense of begotteness, derivation, or stock, whether you translate it as “Only-begotten,” or “Only Stock!”
How precious is this truth! He is the “Only-begotten,” the “Only Offspring” of God, the “Only Born,” the “Only Stock” of God. If Neo-Trinitarians want to assert that -genes is related to genos and not gennao, so be it. But do not let them tell you it changes the meaning of Only-begotten or it negates the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of God. It does not change the fact at all. He still is very God “of” very God. He still eternally proceeds from the Father (Jn. 8:42; 16:28-30; 17:8). He is the “Only-begotten” or “Only Born” of God, not in the sense that there was a time when He was not, and then there was a time when He was. He never had a beginning because His was an eternal begetting, an eternal coming forth.[12]
And so, dear brethren, do not be misled by the new teaching concerning the Son that is being quietly being foisted upon unsuspecting Christians. Do not accept the grievous error of Neo-Trinitarians. The Son is still the “Only-begotten” of the Father, begotten before all ages, as the Historic Christian Faith has always affirmed, whether you believe –genes is derived from gennao or from genos.
B.P.H.
[1] See Kittel, Gerhard, ed., Bromiley, Geoffrey W., trans. & ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. IV, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1967), pg. 738-741
[2] Gill, John, Sermons and Tracts, Vol. III, (Printed by H. Lyons for W. Hardcastle, London, 1815), Pg. 554-555
[3] See Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, ed. (Oxford University Press, London 1975)
[4] See The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. III, Philip Schaff, ed. (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1983)
[5] See, The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, (Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc. Grand Rapids, MI)
[6] This is besides the fact that John’s epistle was inspired by the Holy Spirit. In reality, according to today’s thinking, it would be saying the Holy Spirit was not careful in His language and did not possess very good communicative skills! How terrible, awful and absurd to even think such a thing! The Holy Spirit meant exactly what he said.
[7] Unger, Merrill F., Biblical Demonology: A Study of the Spiritual Forces Behind the Present World Unrest, (Van Kampen Press, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois, 1952), pg. 46-47
[9] Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996), pg. 89
[10] Animals, who are of the same kind, reveal a common bond of nature within each specific group. The same is true of humans. Animals and men cannot be considered to be of the same species unless they have the same derived nature. However, in human and animal fecundity alike, there is a separation of substance. For example, humans have the same substance in “nature,” but not in “possession” for there is a separation of substance in the generation of their offspring. There is no separation of substance in the generation of the Son and the spiration of the Holy Spirit for they eternally coinhere in each other. Therefore, their sameness of substance is not only the same in “nature,” but is also the same in “possession.” They all possess one and the same substance together, without division, and are thus consubstantial with the Father.
[11] The Holy Spirit was not begotten but spirated. The term monogenes can only refer to one who is generated or begotten. That is why the term is never used of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit is of the same kind as the Father through his “eternal procession” or “spiration” and so is also homoousios, or consubstantial.
[12] For more information on this precious doctrine, see Understanding the Trinity, An Encouragement to Abide in the Doctrine in both Faith and Practice, by B.P. Harris, (Assembly Bookshelf, Sacramento, 2006).
|
