These comments are directed towards the TDGNT (Theological Dictionary of the Greek New Testament) Vol 4, pp. 739-741 regarding the meaning of the word μονογενῆ (monogene).
On these pages of the TDGNT we are told that the word monogene means “only-begotten.” References to the use of this word are given as Heb 11:17 which tells us that Isaac is Abraham’s only-begotten (monogenes). In Luke 7:12, the dead man raised is called the only son (monogenes) of his mother. In Luke 8:42, Jairus is called the only child (monogenes). In Luke 9:38 (the TDGNT mistakenly has Luke 8:42), the demonic boy is called the only son (monogenes) of his father (739). The word monogenes as used in each of these verses is translated as either only-begotten, only child, or only son. Notice that there is nothing to lead us to believe that any of these children are a different “kind” of child, but simply an only born child.
The TDGNT goes on to say “As the only-begotten Son Jesus is in the closest intimacy with God. There is no other with whom God can have similar fellowship” (740). It says that if one translates monogenes as only, when it applies to Jesus, it would simply create a comparison rather than the intimate relationship due Jesus. It says that the meaning of the word as it’s used here denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus (741). It also denotes the origin of Jesus (741).
It is this last conclusion that we must take exception to and seek out the rationale behind such a conclusion.
I believe that this statement on page 741 implies that by interpreting monogenes as “only Son” or perhaps “one and only Son,” as translated by several newer Bible versions, when it applies to Jesus would then be in error because it does not reflect the intimate relationship that Jesus has with God nor his origin. So then using “only” instead of using “only-begotten” is incorrect. John 3:16 would be an example of the acceptable way to translate monogenes versus the unacceptable way.
John 3:16 (KJV) (Acceptable)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (NET1) (Unacceptable)
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
The TDGNT goes on to say, “When John speaks of the Son of God, he has primarily in view the man Jesus Christ, though not exclusively the man, but also the risen and pre-existent Lord” (741).
It then claims that this idea is supported by reference to John 17:5, 24. It says that this is indisputable evidence that John refers to the pre-existent Lord as Son. Please note that there is a difference between referring to Jesus as a pre-existent Lord and a pre-existent Son. One does not prove the other. They are independent ideas. So just to make it clear, the TDGNT is saying that the word monogenes, when used only of Jesus, refers to his being a son prior to his earthy birth making him an eternal Son in his pre-existent state. Although these verses might support the idea of a pre-existent Lord, do they support the idea of a pre-existent Son? Could there be an alternative way to take these verses? Below are the indisputable verses in question.
John 17:5 (KJV)
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:24 (KJV)
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
Let’s take a closer look at these verses and see exactly how indisputable they refer to a pre-existent Son.
What glory did Jesus have before the world existed? If he was an eternal Son as the 2nd person of the Trinity, it might explain these verses, but can we really use these verses to create or even support the belief that he was a pre-existent Son and not simply pre-existent? Can these verses stand on their own merit without further support as being indisputable? A connection, therefore, must be made between the pre-existence of Christ and his Eternal Sonship and it must be clear and distinct. Without such a connection we cannot make this indisputable claim.
We know that Paul wrote about Jesus’ pre-existence in Philippians 2:5-7:
Philippians 2:6-9 (KJV)
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
We can see from these verses that whoever Jesus was prior to his incarnation that he was not only in the form of God, but that he was also equal with God. He then became a man, was crucified, and then exalted by being given a name above all names. Note that Paul does not make any mention here of Jesus being in this form as a son.
I believe that the key to understanding these verses is that Jesus was given a name above all names so that he would be exalted. What was this name? We must consider that Paul was a Jew and the only name a Jew would consider above all names is the name Yahweh. This was the name that God spoke to Moses when he asked him for his name. But was this the name that Jesus had prior to his incarnation? Let’s look at another scripture.
John 17:5-6 (ASV)
5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word.
Jesus asked his Father to give him the same glory that he had previously, the glory which was in the name which he already had and manifested to them. The difference being that the name has now been glorified because God has now actually become our Savior through the life and death of Christ and he is now entitled to be called by the name of God, Yahweh Our Savior (Yeshua/Jesus).
And in this next verse we now can further see that Jesus is sending them out into the world just as he was sent out into the world.
John 17:16-18 (KJV)
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
It might sound a bit strange to our ears to hear about Jesus being sent into the world and exactly what that might mean. So the best way to determine that is to follow one of the rules of interpretation which is to use scripture to interpret scripture.
This scripture doesn’t mean that his disciples were in heaven and were being sent down to earth. It means that they were sent out into the world on a mission in the same way that he was. Here is a verse that might help us to see this meaning clearer.
John 1:6 (KJV)
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
I don’t think that anyone would suggest that although John was sent from God, that he had a pre-existence in heaven beside God. It simply says that God authorized the mission of John as he authorized the mission of Christ.
The idea that Jesus was a pre-existent Son is certainly not indisputable in these verses, for it simply says that he was sent out on a mission as the Son of God after having taken on the form of a man.
Does this mean that Jesus didn’t have a preexistence? No. He did have a preexistence which John speaks of as the Word. We will get into that later. But for now there is nothing indisputable about these verses as pointing to a pre-existent Son before the birth of Christ.
Now let’s take a closer look at the second verse that was used as indisputable evidence.
John 17:24 (KJV)
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
God loved Jesus before the world’s foundation or creation. We might think that we know what this verse might mean, but let’s see if there are any other verses that we can use to interpret this one. There are several verses that can help us out here. The first one is from Ephesians.
Ephesians 1:4 (KJV)
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
We were chosen before the foundation of the world. This doesn’t mean that we all have a pre-existence before God created the world. It simply means that God is able to predestine things based upon his foreknowledge (See Rm 8:29-30). God predestined his love for Jesus before the world’s foundation in the same way he predestined our being chosen.
And a verse from Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 1:4-5 (KJV)
4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
These verses have something in common and that’s God’s ability to see things from his eternal time frame. God loved Jesus, chose us, and knew, sanctified, and ordained Jeremiah to be a prophet before they actually happened without any pre-existence on their part.
And here’s another verse from Peter.
1 Peter 1:19-20 (KJV)
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Here we have Peter teaching us that Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be our Savior but was actually manifested as Savior in these last times. Again, there is nothing indisputable about these verses meaning that Jesus pre-existed as a Son before his incarnation. This verse clearly says that Jesus was foreordained, meaning that God already had a plan in place for our salvation. But it wasn’t until Jesus was actually born in the flesh and manifested to us that it actually happened in space and time.
The TDGNT goes on to make its point. It does admit that John does not use the term son for the pre-existent Lord either in his prologue (John 1:1), or in John 8:58, but he does describe his relationship with God as that of a son. It concludes that you cannot extrapolate that this means that the pre-existent Lord is only the Word, and that the son is only the historical and risen Lord (741).
Apparently, it does mean that you can somehow only extrapolate that Jesus is the Eternal Son? But is that really what John is trying to say here? Is he really saying that Jesus was an Eternal Son? He had every opportunity to say exactly that but chose not to. The question is why didn’t he take these perfect opportunities to make this idea of the Eternal Son’s pre-existence clear?
There is a rule of interpretation given to us by Gordon Fee saying that a Bible verse cannot mean something to us today that it never meant to those for whom it was originally intended.1 And there is no way that John could have believed that Jesus was the 2nd person of a Trinity as a pre-existent Eternal Son, or he simply would have said it. It certainly is not found in any Jewish writings or theology of that time.
It appears that the only way the TDGNT can come to this conclusion is that it isn’t actually a conclusion, but a supposition. One must already have this idea firmly in their mind as a conclusion prior to translating or interpreting John’s writings. You cannot and should not interpret scripture based upon supposition.
There is another rule of interpretation that says we cannot use ambiguous scriptures to interpret clear and distinct ones. But rather we must use clear and distinct scriptures to interpret the ambiguous ones.2
A doctrine must be based upon verses that can only have one clear and distinct meaning. Ambiguous verses might be helpful in supporting those clear and distinct verses, but they cannot be used as source scriptures for creating doctrines or teaching.
The TDGNT makes another comment about the beginning of John’s prologue.
John 1:1-3 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.
The TDGNT doesn’t believe that John’s reference to Christ as the Word is intimate enough as it would have been if he had used the term son. But let me point out that John is telling us that not only is there an intimate relationship between the Word of God and God, but that the Word of God is God. And John is trying to make this very clear by telling us that Jesus was the very being of God and not another person or being distinct from God. He was God!
It is true that in our day our word doesn’t really mean very much, but in the Biblical days it was very different. But it isn’t what we think of our word today that matters. It’s what it meant at the time that John penned his gospel. This is what John thinks about the Word.
John 17:17 (KJV)
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
God’s relationship to his Word is the most intimate relationship that there can be. God’s Word represents his thoughts and his will. God’s Word is his truth expressed in our time and space in the form of the Christ. This is what John was actually saying. There is nothing in any of these verses above that even hints that he was speaking about a pre-existent Eternal Son of God.
John tells us more about who Jesus was in the following selection of verses.
John 14:6-7 (KJV)
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
John 1:14 (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Seeing Jesus was the same as seeing his Father. The two were not only equal but had an ontological bond that was inseparable. And that truth was now expressed in flesh and glory of God as was seen through his grace and truth. And this all took place after his incarnation. It does not imply that he was an Eternal Son, but that he was an incarnated Son.
The TDGNT also mentioned John 8:58 as a scripture that somehow supports the idea of a pre-existent Eternal Son.
John 8:58-59 (KJV)
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
Here Jesus is telling the Jews in their own language that he existed before Abraham, not as an Eternal Son, but as Yahweh, the LORD. We know this by the fact that he uses the name of God, “I AM.” This was his pre-existent identity!
The TDGNT does, however, concede that John may not be directly using the term monogenes as referring to his pre-existent sonship. But it still believes that he probably is.
The note at the bottom of page 741 states that since the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world, there is no room for doubt that the pre-existent Lord was already a Son. The term logos (Word) as used by John does not give us the right to assume that logos was a power of God standing in an impersonal relationship to Him. (741)
We already covered this idea of the Word being more than capable of carrying the idea of such a personal relationship and perhaps even more as it makes the Word equal to God.
There are many questions that I have concerning this teaching of an eternal son and among them are why it’s not directly mentioned in scripture by anyone and why didn’t any of the writers of the New Testament teach that Jesus was the 2nd person of a Trinity or that he existed as the Eternal Son of God long before he was ever born to Mary?
No New Testament writer addresses these issues because these beliefs were never believed by Jesus’ disciples nor the very early church. These ideas came about much later and weren’t accepted into the church until almost 300 years after the crucifixion of Christ and more than 200 years after the New Testament was finally completed. And not without much argument and disagreement between the bishops. (See my History of the Trinity post).
To further justify my point, I suggest that you should do a Bible search on the phrase “The word of the LORD” and you will find a great many verses that speak about the authority of God’s word. When God spoke, all the prophets listened and obeyed. In this very same way Jesus was also the Word of the LORD. God spoke through Christ as the Word of the LORD. Jesus didn’t simply speak the Word of the LORD, but he became the Word of the LORD.
Psalm 33:6-11 (KJV)
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
10 The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
But Jesus wasn’t simply the word of God. He was the Word of YHVH (LORD). Today the whole idea of the Jewish identity of Christ as YHVH (Yahweh) has become diminished if not entirely lost because it has given way to the Gentile idea of a pre-existent eternal son.
In summary, if we apply the rules of interpretation to this belief, we must use clear and distinct verses to clarify obscure and ambiguous ones. Those clear and distinct verses say that Jesus was born to Mary and for this reason he is called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). This is the only time that Jesus was spoken of as having been actually born. So, any ambiguous verses about a pre-existent son being eternally born or begotten cannot carry their own meaning as authoritative without having a clear and distinct reference verse as its authority. All scriptures therefore must be interpreted in reference to this event of the incarnation of Christ as a human child.
If there was another event when God himself gave birth to a son, whether in time, before time, or eternally, it must be clearly and distinctly set in scripture and not ambiguous.
But no writer of the New Testament ever wrote any such verses because they simply did not believe that there was any such pre-existent son. If they did, they didn’t share it in their writings.
In a follow-up paper I will show how Athanasius mis-represented the Trinity through his lack of understanding Jewish theology and the importance of the Name of God (YHVH) in understanding the true identity of Christ.
PHILOSOPHY & CHRISTIANITY 