Tell me more ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

Apart from John's writings, is there any Biblical evidence that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten son of God?

John makes it clear (such as in John 1:18, 3:18), but other parts of the Bible refer to many "sons of God", in both the Old Testament and the New.

Can anyone help me understand this?

I'm specifically looking for answers from those who condone blood-transfusion and don't forbid coffee drinking.

share|improve this question
1  
Why would you want proof besides John 1:18 and John 3:18? I am trying to understand the reasoning behind this. – LoveTheFaith Jun 12 '12 at 1:31
@LoveTheFaith - because Jehovah's witnesses translate those words as "the only begotten god" and like it or not but that way of translation of that word is also possible. – brilliant Jun 12 '12 at 1:40
I see. Perhaps it will help if you ask them what it means to be a son, as I have done in my post! :) – LoveTheFaith Jun 12 '12 at 1:57
3  
What's the purpose of your comment about "blood transfusion and coffee drinking"? I don't understand how those are at all related to the nature of Jesus. – Joe Jun 12 '12 at 17:27
@Joe - because Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons do consider Jesus to be a god, but they don't believe that He is the God, so their understanding of the nature of Jesus is quite different from the main-stream Christianity understanding. Since on this site we are supposed to consider them Christians, but to me it would be impossible - I wouldn't be able to say "all Christians except for Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons", I decided to take them out of my audience in the way of using other points of their teaching that they insist on (blood transfusion - JW, coffee consumption - Mormons) – brilliant Jun 12 '12 at 23:59

4 Answers

up vote 11 down vote accepted

The term "only begotten" is a translation of the Greek word "monogenes". "Mono" indicates one and "genes" indicates kind. So, the very word itself indicates a meaning of "one of a kind".

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word was actually used of Isaac. It should be noted that Isaac was not, in fact, the only son of Abraham. He was neither the first nor the last, as Ishmael preceded him and the sons of Keturah came from Abraham's second marriage that followed the death of Sarah. (Abraham did, indeed, "have many sons".)

Still, Isaac's "sonship" was wholly unlike all the others ("one of a kind") in that he was the son of the promise and came from a miraculous birth from a woman who was well past the age of childbearing.

As @Mike noted, followers of Jesus are called "sons and daughters of God". However, this is quite different from the "sonship" of Jesus. His "sonship" is wholly unlike any other, in that it is eternal. Indeed, His birth into this world was miraculous as well.

So, Jesus is not the only "son" of God, but His "sonship" is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others who are called sons and daughters of God. He is literally the Monogenes--the One-of-a Kind--eternal Son of God.

share|improve this answer
Your whole answer seems to be based on the translation of the word "only-begotten", and the only book in the Bible that uses that word directly in reference to Jesus is the Gospel of John. Therefore, your whole answer given here is only valid when you consider the Gospel of John. My question, however, is requesting the proof from outside of the Gospel of John. – brilliant Jun 12 '12 at 1:12
@brilliant The rest of the Bible confirms the distinct nature of Jesus and thereby implicitly confirms this teaching. Nowhere else in Scripture is anyone given anything close to equality with Jesus. – Narnian Jun 12 '12 at 12:58
Well, I agree with that. Mormons also agree with that, however, it doesn't stop them from claiming that Lucifer is yet another Son of God. – brilliant Jun 12 '12 at 14:22
2  
@brilliant Yes, but that claim can not be soundly demonstrated from anything in the Bible. The Bible affirms what is true. It does not identify every untruth that anyone could ever come up with and say that it is wrong. – Narnian Jun 12 '12 at 17:47
That's why I tried to look for a proof from the Bible, but outside of John's writings. – brilliant Jun 13 '12 at 0:05
up vote 7 down vote

Begotten = Same Nature

Think of what it means to be a begotten son. A begotten son of a human, is human by nature. A begotten son of God therefore, is God by nature. This is the key.

Nature of God

What is the nature of God? Let's take just one quality of God - eternity. God, by definition, is eternal by nature. He is timeless. He wasn't created, but he himself is the beginning and the end, if we can use those terms for him. A begotten son of God therefore should also be eternal. Indeed Jesus Christ is eternal (John 1:1, Revelation 22:13). And he is a son of God (Matthew 16:16-17), and "bears the very stamp of God's nature" (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus is therefore a begotten son of God.

So far, we have proved that Jesus is a begotten son of God. Now, we have to prove that he is the only begotten son of God.

Nature of angels and humans

Who else are the candidates? Angels and humans. The Bible also calls angels (Job 1:6) and humans (Gal 3:26) "sons of God". But are they "sons of God" by nature? No. Angels were created (Psalm 148:5) and humans were created too (Genesis 1). Therefore, they are not eternal by nature and therefore, they cannot be begotten sons of God. They have to be adopted sons of God (Romans 8:14-15, Galatians 4:5). Through their adoption, they participate in God's own divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) and are therefore sons of God (1 John 3:1). Although the Bible doesn't mention how exactly angels are sons of God, since we know they are created beings, we have to conclude that they are not begotten sons of God but should be adopted sons of God.

Conclusion

Besides, the Bible also says that Jesus is the only son of God in 1 John 4:9 and also in the verses that you mentioned (John 1:18, John 3:18).

What can we conclude from this? The conclusion is that Jesus is the only begotten son of God.

share|improve this answer
1  
Nice answer! This was a very interesting read. Also, thanks for taking the time to include so many references. – Jas 3.1 Jun 12 '12 at 18:15
up vote 2 down vote

All Christians are 'sons of God', but only Jesus was born of a Virgin by the Holy Spirit. That is what the Bible means 'only son'.

The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” which means, “God with us.” (Mathew 1:23)

The idea of 'son of God' simply means those who bear his image. Adam and Eve were by nature the 'sons of God'. They stood in relation of 'sons' to God by the communication of his image and likeness. On the same account the angels are frequently called the 'sons of God'. God in His divine wisdom also recovered sinners and re-created his image in them as 'sons' by adoption. This adoption was through Christ, who was Himself the essential and eternal Son of God.

So the proof that Jesus was the 'Only' son of God refers to God joining Himself with humanity by the Virgin birth. So your question is actually is there any proof that only Jesus was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. The answer seems clear if we read the gospel accounts, there is no other Son.

I do not recall anyone else claiming to have been born from a virgin and believed to be the Messiah. If there was such a person, I am sure we would find they did not fulfill the scores of other Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ.

share|improve this answer
5  
Do you mean to say that He was not the Son of God before His incarnation? – brilliant Jun 11 '12 at 11:25
@brilliant It sounds like Mike is saying that Jesus was always (eternally) the Son of God, but is referred to as "only begotten" because of the virgin birth. – Jas 3.1 Jun 12 '12 at 18:18
Jas3.1 is stating the facts. The pre-existant eternal Son of God was claimed by the Father to be his 'Son' in john's babptism. Then later the Jews wanted to stone him for saying before Abraham was 'I am'. Jeus was either very God of God or a blasphemer to be stoned under the law of moses. – Mike Jun 12 '12 at 23:47
@Mike - So, are you saying that He was not the only-begotten son before incarnation? – brilliant Jun 13 '12 at 0:07
@brilliant. I think you need to combine Jas 3.1 as the primary answer with mine. I was trying to give you 'proof'. Principally Jesus was the essential image of the Father through eternal generation, then also only begotten through his incarnation and perfect witness of the Father on earth. It was this incarnate person that God gave for sin though. – Mike Jun 13 '12 at 0:23
show 3 more comments
up vote -3 down vote

Bible mentions "Son of God" by the Tons. It can be taught of as "Chosen person" and should not be taken literally.

In the book of Psalms 2:7 we find

Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Here in this verse we see that God not only called David his "Son", but also had made him his begotten Son.

hence Clearly Jesus is not the only "begotten" son of God.

The Bible says,

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." (Luke3:23)

The Bible goes on to mention the supposed genealogy of Jesus Christ. At the end of this genealogy the Bible comes to Adam, and it says,

"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38).

So Adam is also the son of God.

share|improve this answer
2  
Did you miss the fact that Jesus is referred to in the Bible as the ONLY-begotten Son? It's true that Adam is called a son of God, and the book of Job, for example, speaks of sons of God, as well as that psalm that you are quoting, however, Bible also calls Jesus the Only-begotten Son of God, a title that has not been given in the Bible to Adam or anyone else. So, if you accept the whole Bible, and not just some of its parts, you must acknowledge that the sonship of Jesus is quite different from that of Adam or others. It is in terms of this unique sonship that Jesus is the Only-begotten One. – brilliant Mar 5 at 7:41
In the book of Psalms 2:7 we find "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." David, in this verse, is saying that God had told him he was the son of God and God has "begotten" him. – NotMyWill- but GodWillBe done Mar 5 at 10:48
So, how does that change the point I made in my previous comment? No doubt, David said that. However, David didn't say "you have begotten ONLY me". Bible is very precise in this matter. The ONLY-begotten-ness is ascribed in the Bible only to Jesus. Yes, David was used in the Bible as a prototype of Jesus, however, David's sonship is way lower then the sonship of Jesus, which is indicated in such passages as Matthew 22:41-46 and Acts 2: 25-34. Jesus' sonship is quite unique, only He possesses that kind of sonship, hence, in the Bible He is referred to as the only-begotten Son of God. – brilliant Mar 5 at 12:17
1  
The Son in Psalm 2 does not refer to David. As you can see in verse 12, David exhorts people to "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him." David says over and over again that "the Lord is his refuge." David is not the refuge for anyone. So, this is quite clearly not referring to David. – Narnian Mar 7 at 16:36
Adam is clearly a special creation of God--quite distinct from how Seth was the son of Adam. Also, Adam was mortal, while the Bible clearly identifies Jesus as eternal. – Narnian Mar 7 at 16:41

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.