Skip to main content
added 1816 characters in body
Source Link
Mike Borden
  • 21k
  • 2
  • 22
  • 67

In the New Testament, the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενής) appears 9 times and is translated as only or only begotten every time. 4 times it is used to describe the solitary physical descendant of a human being (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and Hebrews 11:17). The other 5 times it is used to describe Jesus as the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9). The emphasis appears consistent each time: That which is begotten is of the same nature as that which begat it.

In Luke's Gospel (3:38) the lineage of Jesus is traced back to Adam, the Son of God. Since we know from Genesis that Adam was formed by God from the dust of the Earth and that Adam was of a different nature than God who formed him, and since there does not appear to be any record in Scripture of a begotten child that is different in nature from it's begetting parent, we have what appears to be a critical distinction between a begotten son and a created son.

“We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set – or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Son's of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.” - C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity)

Begetting is the father's role. A child is born of it's mother and begotten of it's father. Both impart the essential nature of it's parent. In this way Jesus was human being (through Mary the mother) and Divine being (through God the Father). Unlike an elephant and an ostrich, which cannot produce offspring because the essential natures are incompatible, humanity (Mary) and Spirit (God) are compatible. If the son of God was created by God then he certainly was not Divine, but if he was begotten of God then he certainly was.

My question is: Do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize this distinction between the only begotten Son of God and a created son? If not, how do they explain the consistent use of the term and, if so, how can they then affirm that Jesus was God's first creation since he is so clearly portrayed as begotten not made which then makes him of the same nature as God?

In the New Testament, the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενής) appears 9 times and is translated as only or only begotten every time. 4 times it is used to describe the solitary physical descendant of a human being (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and Hebrews 11:17). The other 5 times it is used to describe Jesus as the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9). The emphasis appears consistent each time: That which is begotten is of the same nature as that which begat it.

In Luke's Gospel (3:38) the lineage of Jesus is traced back to Adam, the Son of God. Since we know from Genesis that Adam was formed by God from the dust of the Earth and that Adam was of a different nature than God who formed him and since there does not appear to be any record in Scripture of a begotten child that is different in nature from it's begetting parent we have what appears to be a distinction between a begotten son and a created son.

My question is: Do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize this distinction between the only begotten Son of God and a created son? If not, how do they explain the consistent use of the term and, if so, how can they then affirm that Jesus was God's first creation since he is so clearly portrayed as begotten not made which then makes him of the same nature as God?

In the New Testament, the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενής) appears 9 times and is translated as only or only begotten every time. 4 times it is used to describe the solitary physical descendant of a human being (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and Hebrews 11:17). The other 5 times it is used to describe Jesus as the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9). The emphasis appears consistent each time: That which is begotten is of the same nature as that which begat it.

In Luke's Gospel (3:38) the lineage of Jesus is traced back to Adam, the Son of God. Since we know from Genesis that Adam was formed by God from the dust of the Earth and that Adam was of a different nature than God who formed him, and since there does not appear to be any record in Scripture of a begotten child that is different in nature from it's begetting parent, we have what appears to be a critical distinction between a begotten son and a created son.

“We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set – or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Son's of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.” - C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity)

Begetting is the father's role. A child is born of it's mother and begotten of it's father. Both impart the essential nature of it's parent. In this way Jesus was human being (through Mary the mother) and Divine being (through God the Father). Unlike an elephant and an ostrich, which cannot produce offspring because the essential natures are incompatible, humanity (Mary) and Spirit (God) are compatible. If the son of God was created by God then he certainly was not Divine, but if he was begotten of God then he certainly was.

My question is: Do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize this distinction between the only begotten Son of God and a created son? If not, how do they explain the consistent use of the term and, if so, how can they then affirm that Jesus was God's first creation since he is so clearly portrayed as begotten not made which then makes him of the same nature as God?

Tweeted twitter.com/StackChristian/status/1227381960408027146
Source Link
Mike Borden
  • 21k
  • 2
  • 22
  • 67

Distinction between Created Son and Begotten Son for Jehovah's Witnesses

In the New Testament, the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενής) appears 9 times and is translated as only or only begotten every time. 4 times it is used to describe the solitary physical descendant of a human being (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and Hebrews 11:17). The other 5 times it is used to describe Jesus as the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9). The emphasis appears consistent each time: That which is begotten is of the same nature as that which begat it.

In Luke's Gospel (3:38) the lineage of Jesus is traced back to Adam, the Son of God. Since we know from Genesis that Adam was formed by God from the dust of the Earth and that Adam was of a different nature than God who formed him and since there does not appear to be any record in Scripture of a begotten child that is different in nature from it's begetting parent we have what appears to be a distinction between a begotten son and a created son.

My question is: Do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize this distinction between the only begotten Son of God and a created son? If not, how do they explain the consistent use of the term and, if so, how can they then affirm that Jesus was God's first creation since he is so clearly portrayed as begotten not made which then makes him of the same nature as God?