Jump to content
Online Baptist - Independent Baptist Community
TRKJVlover

Only Begotten Son of God?

Recommended Posts

So i am pretty sure it is from my upbringing in the Baptist faith but just in case your thought on Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God; would be helpful.  My understanding is Jesus became the Only Begotten Son at His First Coming.

 

But I know many believe Jesus has been the Son before time began; eternal Sonship which I find to be beyond my understanding.

Apreciate any thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother "TRKJVlover," (if you were to provide your given name, I would use it herein out of respect)

I myself hold to the position of eternal sonship for God the Son in relation to God the Father.  Yet in this posting I do not intend to provide my argumentation for that position, rather I wish to ask some questions in relation to your position against it, as follows:

1.  Do you believe in the tri-unity of the Godhead?
2.  If you do, do you also believe that the tri-unity of the Godhead existed as a tri-unity in eternity past?
3.  If you do, what was the relationship structure between the three Persons of the eternal Godhead with one another in eternity past?
4.  More specifically, what was the relationship structure between God the Son and God the Father with one another in eternity past?  (Thought question: From the perspective of your position, was God the Son always God the Son; or did He only become God the Son at His incarnation, such that He was God the  . . . something else . . . prior to His incarnation?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TRKJVlover said:

the Only Begotten Son of God;

 

The koiné Greek word for "only begotten" in John 1:14, John 1:18, and John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, and 1John 4:9 is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a combo of two words. I'll tell you what it means; but I won't tell you how to interpret it because there lacks a consensus of opinion how best to do so.

 

The first is mono, which is a common prefix, e.g. monophonic, monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome, monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.

 

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing. In other words: monogenes refers to one distinct biological gene set rather than many.

 

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a parent's sole biological child in the New Testament. If a parent has two or three biological children, none of them qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a monogenes child, the child has to be an only child.

 

Obviously then, an adopted child can never be strictly monogenes in the home because though it might be a home's only child, it wouldn't be a home's only biological child.

 

Examples of monogenes children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

 

/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel 3:25  He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

 

This is definitely before the first coming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-

The below is an item of interest that may or may not have any bearing upon the OP.

 

Heb 11:17 . . By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son

 

At the time of the offering of Isaac, Abraham actually had two biological sons; the other was Ishmael. So then, how might Isaac have been the only biological son?

 

Well; it's impossible to actually revise one's biological heritage; but there was a legal way to do it back then.

 

Gen 21:10 . .[Sarah] said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

 

The phrase "cast out" implies cruelty; and leaves a wrong impression. Sarah (and God too) wanted her own flesh and blood to follow in Abraham's footsteps instead of Hagar's boy Ishmael; and, in the case of slave mothers, there was a perfectly humane way to do it.

 

I'm told that the common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate because he was Abraham's firstborn biological son. However, there was a clause in the laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's in-slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner in effect not only disinheriting the slave mother's child, but also disowning him.

 

The catch is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.

 

Gen 21:14 . . Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away:

 

The phrase "sent her away" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh') which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves.

 

In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's eldest biological son.

 

Technically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons (Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was dissolved when he emancipated Ishmael's mother.

 

NOTE: I believe it's important to emphasize that Hagar and Ishmael weren't cut loose because they were no longer worthy to live in Abraham's camp any more. No. It was only as a measure to expedite God's future plans for Isaac. Even if Sarah hadn't proposed the idea of emancipating Hagar, I suspect that God would have eventually required it so anyway.

 

/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zuno_Yazh said:

-

The below is an item of interest that may or may not have any bearing upon the OP.

 

Heb 11:17 . . By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son

 

At the time of the offering of Isaac, Abraham actually had two biological sons; the other was Ishmael. So then, how might Isaac have been the only biological son?

 

Well; it's impossible to actually revise one's biological heritage; but there was a legal way to do it back then.

 

Gen 21:10 . .[Sarah] said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

 

The phrase "cast out" implies cruelty; and leaves a wrong impression. Sarah (and God too) wanted her own flesh and blood to follow in Abraham's footsteps instead of Hagar's boy Ishmael; and, in the case of slave mothers, there was a perfectly humane way to do it.

 

I'm told that the common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate because he was Abraham's firstborn biological son. However, there was a clause in the laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's in-slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner in effect not only disinheriting the slave mother's child, but also disowning him.

 

The catch is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.

 

Gen 21:14 . . Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away:

 

The phrase "sent her away" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh') which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves.

 

In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's eldest biological son.

 

Technically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons (Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was dissolved when he emancipated Ishmael's mother.

 

NOTE: I believe it's important to emphasize that Hagar and Ishmael weren't cut loose because they were no longer worthy to live in Abraham's camp any more. No. It was only as a measure to expedite God's future plans for Isaac. Even if Sarah hadn't proposed the idea of emancipating Hagar, I suspect that God would have eventually required it so anyway.

 

/

This does not have any bearing on the OP.  Please stay on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 70 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×