How do we understand the meaning of "only begotten" Son?

How do we understand the meaning of "only begotten" Son?

The word translated "only begotten" appears nine times in our New Testament. Luke uses it three times in his gospel to describe either an only daughter (8:42) or only son (7:12; 9:38). The term also describes Isaac (Heb 11:17)," TARGET="_blank">Heb 11:17), which is instructive, because Isaac was not the only son born to Abraham. He was the father of Ishmael and six other sons (Gen 25:2)." TARGET="_blank">Gen 25:2). Isaac, however, was uniquely precious (22:2), because God promised to fulfil His covenant with Abraham through Isaac.

The remaining references to "only begotten" are from John’s pen and all refer to the Lord Jesus. The first mention in John is significant. Although the other four references (1:18; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9)" TARGET="_blank">1Jo 4:9) have an article ("the") with "only begotten," the first reference does not. "We beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten of a Father" (John 1:14," TARGET="_blank">John 1:14, YLT). The absence of an article does not mean He was like an only begotten son. He was and is "the only begotten Son." As Mr. Newberry points out, the missing article indicates character. John saw in Christ every evidence that He was the Son uniquely precious to His Father and every reason why He should be thus treasured by His Father.

Although John never refers to believers as "sons of God," he does tell us that we are begotten (a related word) by God (1Jo 5:1, 18)." TARGET="_blank">1Jo 5:1, 18). Since many are begotten by God, the term "only begotten" cannot refer to the act of "begetting." It cannot therefore imply a beginning of the Son’s existence, or His becoming the Son of God, or His birth into humanity. "Only begotten" expresses the uniqueness of the Son in the essential value He has to the Father and in the central place He has in all that the Father has purposed.

For those who find the expression "only begotten" rather archaic, the words "only Son" convey much the same truth, although "unique Son" may express the truth more completely.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can Old Testament believers be saved by believing in Jesus?

How were Old Testament people saved. What did they understand about Christ and His sacrifice?

Statements like John 3:36, 14:6," TARGET="_blank">John 3:36, 14:6, Acts 4:12" TARGET="_blank">Acts 4:12 and I Timothy 2:5" TARGET="_blank">I Timothy 2:5 allow us to infer from Scripture that it is impossible to be saved apart from the work of Christ and personal faith in Him. That inference is justified by the clear teaching of Romans 3:25,26." TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:25,26. The statement "the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God" is linked with the propitiatory death of our Lord Jesus. He was the foreordained Lamb. His death was a certainty in the purposes of God and enabled God, in His forbearance, to forgive sin in light of a coming Calvary (Psalm 32:1)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 32:1). It is wonderful to think of the Spirit of God gently dealing with a devout Hebrew who was searching for God and wondering what the significance of the many sacrifices was. I Peter 1:10," TARGET="_blank">I Peter 1:10,11 refers to those who searched diligently for the meaning and time of the fulfillment of prophecies relating to salvation. Imagine Daniel's awe when it was revealed to him that Messiah would be "cut off!" Many of those Old Testament believers could join us in singing, "O wondrous hour when God to me, a vision gave of Calvary."

E. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the Bible teach "total depravity"

Does the Bible teach "total depravity"

Morally, our fallen nature is completely corrupt and degraded. "Deceitful above all things, and incurable" (Jeremiah 17:9," TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 17:9, JND), our natural heart, our mind, is hostile to God and rebellious against and incapable of submission to righteousness (Romans 8:7, 8)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:7, 8). Apart from Gods intervention, we neither seek Him nor desire anything but what serves self. This evil contaminates all that human nature produces; therefore, the unregenerate cannot glorify or please God.

Going beyond Scripture, Calvinists, however, teach that "total depravity" means mans will cannot choose right. That God brings judgment on those who disobey the Son (John 3:36," TARGET="_blank">John 3:36, Weymouth) and assures the water of life dependent on mans will (Rev. 22:17)" TARGET="_blank">Rev. 22:17) affirms mans ability to choose evil or good. Adams fall bent the will of "the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:3)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:3) toward evil, but did not make them incapable of choosing right. Furthermore, mans conscience bears the signature of Gods law (Romans 2:13)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 2:13). Depravity is total in its effect on all man does, but not its extent to every part of man.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How does Satan communicate?

How does Satan communicate?

Satan was a created cherub (Ezekiel 28:14)," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:14), one of the angelic orders. As such, he operates in the realm of spirits. Though fallen, he remains a spirit being.

Two references will suffice to show his work in the spirit realm. In Acts 5:3," TARGET="_blank">Acts 5:3, Peter asked Ananias, "Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" Since the human spirit is related to knowledge, to the mind (1 Corinthians 2:11)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 2:11), Satan is able to insinuate thoughts into the human mind.

The soul is also part of man’s spirit being and relates to the emotions (Matthew 12:18; 26:38)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:18; 26:38). Since the Lord tempts no man with evil (James 1:13)," TARGET="_blank">James 1:13), it seems necessary to understand that "an evil spirit from the Lord" (1 Samuel 16:14)" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 16:14) that afflicted Saul was permitted by God, not directed by Him. This evil spirit affected Saul’s emotions, bringing him into a form of depression and violent anger.

The conclusion, then, is that Satan communicates with men through their mind and emotions.

In both of these cases, Satan’s communication does not override the responsibility of the individual. Ananias was responsible for the acts he committed in response to Satan’s initiative. As strong as Satan is, we can resist (James 4:7)" TARGET="_blank">James 4:7) his mental and emotional attacks. Our will determines our response to Satan’s communication.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does it mean that God created man in His image?

Other pages in this section

About this site

How much alcohol should a Christian drink before feeling that he has gone too far?

How much alcohol should a Christian drink before feeling that he has gone too far?

A simple answer is that a believer should avoid alcoholic drinking in a social setting. Drinking alcoholic beverages can become a habit and lead to drunkenness. The first time wine is mentioned in the scriptures is in connection with Noah, "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent" (Genesis 9:21)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:21).

Drunkenness and impurity are associated, as wise King Solomon points out in Proverbs 23:29-35." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 23:29-35. Genesis 19:32" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 19:32 gives further evidence of this. Wine in itself is not condemned in scripture; however, it is clear that drunkenness is a very serious sin (1 Corinthians 5:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:9).

Paul exhorts Timothy to "use a little wine" as a medicine, not a beverage. He limits the amount to "a little" (1 Timothy 5:23)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:23). "Be not drunk with wine, ...but be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:18).

What about a Christian's testimony before unbelievers to whom he has spoken about Christ when they see that believer drinking?

J. Abernathy

Other pages in this section

About this site

Will the friends and relations of this world recognise one another in heaven?

RECOGNITION IN HEAVEN
Will the friends and relations of this world recognise one another in heaven?

Three Scriptures come to mind

(1), Luke 13:28" TARGET="_blank">Luke 13:28: “Ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God and ye yourselves thrust out”;

(2), Luke 16:24" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:24: “Father Abraham . . . send Lazarus”;

(3) Matthew 17:4" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17:4 Peter said, “Let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.”

The Jews would know the patriarchs and all the prophets; the rich man recognised Lazarus and knew Abraham; the apostles knew Moses and Elias. It is a fair deduction that, if in a future state, or even here under spiritual conditions, there is recognition of those not known before, there will be not less of those already known. But the conditions being entirely altered, and new relations established, the old would disappear. Even now this is temporarily the case in an assembly of saints, gathering to the name of the Lord. When they are thus “in church” the earthly relations are in abeyance, but the personality persists, and so will it be I believe in the future state. Earthly relations and affections will be for ever superseded by heavenly, but the personality will never lose its identity. “Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known (1 Corinthians 13:12)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 13:12).

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

In Isaiah 53:12, who are the

In Isaiah 53:12," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:12, who are the “great” and the “strong”, and in what way does God “divide” to the Messiah a portion with them?

Is it not probable that we place overmuch emphasis on these three words, and that we seek to get more out of them than perhaps they are meant to convey? “Divide” seems to suggest to our minds a cutting up into so many definite shares, of which Christ gets His, and certain others get theirs. But what if we use the word “assign” as is done in Darby’s Translation, or render the clause, “I will allot to Him a portion among the mighty”, as Gesenius does in his Lexicon! Either of these is quite correct as a rendering, and at the same time does not tie up our thoughts to an actual division of something into two or more parts. This should make it clear to us that the meaning may be no more than as follows: “I will assign to Him such a spoil as is usually that obtained by the great and the strong; and I will do so in recompense for (“Therefore”) His having suffered in littleness and weakness (as pictured in v. 7, etc.), and for (“because”) His having poured out His soul unto death (middle of v. 12).
Viewed in this way, the words “great” and “strong”, which are both plurals, need not refer to any particular individuals, but to the great and strong in general. Compare how the same two words are coupled together in such passages as Isaiah 8:7;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 8:7; Joel 2:2" TARGET="_blank">Joel 2:2 and Zecheriah 8:22; the word “many” in the first and last of these being the same Hebrew word as “great” in our verse.
The translators of the Septuagint, when turning the passage into Greek, rendered the second clause. “He shall divide the spoils OF the mighty”, and left out the “with” of the first clause also; thus suggesting the meaning to be a complete triumph over all His foes, however “many” or “mighty” they were. Various commentators agree with this view of the passage. But whether we take it thus, and think of the great and mighty ones as His enemies, amongst whom He stands out pre-eminent; the basic idea in the statement is much the same—that the One who stooped so low and who suffered so much, has been given a place and an honour beyond all others.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Were Jesus "brothers" actually his cousins?

Were “the brethren of the Lord” in such passages as Matthew 12: 46," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12: 46, Matthew 13: 55," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13: 55, etc., His actual brethren? or were they his cousins, as some teach?

Were it not for controversial reasons I do not think any such question would ever have been raised. The word for “cousin” is distinct, and that used for the Lord’s “brethren,” though sometimes meaning “stepbrother,” is the ordinary one for brother, and there is no hint in the Gospels of Joseph having been married before. This effort to make the word mean “cousin” is supposed to be necessary in order to defend the miraculous birth and the false idea existing that it is holier not to have children, than to have them; whereas the two thoughts—the Virgin Birth and the perpetual virginity of Mary, are quite distinct and independent. While we believe unswervingly in the former, we hold that the testimony of Scripture is against the latter. The expression, “the brethren (adelphoi) of the Lord,” occurs nine times in the Gospels and once in the Acts. In Matthew 12:46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:46 and its parallels in Mark and Luke (where His mother and brethren come to Him); Matthew 13:55" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:55 and its parallel in Mark (where the brethren are named Jacob, Joseph, Simon and Judas, four common Jewish names), in connection with His mother and sisters. The four others are: John 2:12" TARGET="_blank">John 2:12—”His mother and His brethren,” and chap. 7. 3, 5, io, where His brethren are said not to have believed in Him. However, it is asserted by the advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that “these brethren” were the sons of Alphus, the husband of the sister of the mother of our Lord, and therefore his cousins. If this were so, it is remarkable that they should be so consistently found with the mother of Jesus, their aunt, rather than with their own mother, the wife of Alphus or Clopas, who was still alive. Now, it is nowhere affirmed that any of the Lord’s brethren were among the twelve apostles; indeed it is plainly stated in John 7," TARGET="_blank">John 7, “Neither did His brethren believe on Him.” But among the apostles there were at least two sons of Alphus, James and his brother Judas, and possibly Matthew, who in Mark’s Gospel is said to be “the son of Alphus,” and these certainly could not be among those who did not believe on Him. The two things are inconsistent. Afterwards the brothers did believe, but they never entered the ranks of the twelve apostles. In fact they are in some places distinguished from the apostles, e.g., in Acts 1:14," TARGET="_blank">Acts 1:14, where they were present in the prayer meeting, but apart from the eleven. See also 1 Corinthians 9:5," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:5, “As well as other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas.” In reality there are two verses in the New Testament which state implicitly that Mary had other children besides our Lord, namely Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1: 25 (“till she had brought forth her first-born son”); and Luke 2:7" TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:7 (“And she brought forth her first-born son”). Now, though the Revisers have omitted, “first-born,” in Matthew 1:25," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:25, the word is not a plain and clear error, and therefore by the canon of authority laid down for the Revisionists,* it ought to have been left alone. The Luke passage is not disputed and is very emphatic. Had our Lord been the only Child of Mary, He wouldcertainly have been called her only Son—her “monogenës.” As it is, He is called in both these passages her first-born, her “prötotokos.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can a sinning believer be restored to the Lord?

How can a sinning believer be restored to the Lord?

Both restoration of communion lost through one sin and also restoration from a path of sin involve two principles. First, confession is essential (Jeremiah 3:13;" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 3:13; Hosea 14:2;" TARGET="_blank">Hosea 14:2; 1 John 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9). More than mere words, confession means taking God's view of our sin. Sin is not a weakness or an addiction. It cannot be justified in any way nor its responsibility transferred to someone else or to r circumstances. Its primary shame is not its being "found out..." Sin is a wrong directed against God (Psalm 51:4)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 51:4), destructive to one's self, and harmful to others. Any unwillingness to forsake the sin nullifies confession. "Whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy" (Proverbs 28:13)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 28:13). Confession is not pleading for forgiveness, repeatedly decrying the sin, or making one's self feel "lowly." It is not primarily emotional; it is a statement of submission to God's character.

The second principle is devotion. Restoration is not complete until a believer has returned to feeding on Christ. Only the power of divine life overcomes sin. By daily reading, meditation, and prayer, the believer can yield to the Spirit's working and know the transforming power of resurrection life.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu