“Only Begotten” vs. “One of a Kind”

 

Let me first state that I believe there is absolute evidence that the translation of “monogenes” as “Only Begotten” is the correct translation, but let presuppose for the sake of argument that those who deny it are right. What does it then teach us according to Scripture?

 

A common statement heard today among those who deny the eternal generation of the Son from the Father is that the word monogenes is mistranslated as “Only-Begotten” in such versions as the KJV, NKJV, ASV, and NASB. Consequently, the translation of this word has been changed to “One and Only” in such Bibles as the NIV or to “One of a Kind” in such paraphrases as the Message.

            Such Christians contend that godly men for over two millennia have misunderstood the meaning of the word and that modern linguists have now discovered its true meaning. They state that the problem was that for most of church history men erroneously thought the suffix -genes was related to the word gennao which means to begat, rather than being related to genos which means “kind” or “class.” Now, forgetting the fact, that such is not the case – (many linguists, who preferred to see genes as related to genos, still believed it should be translated as “only begotten,”)[1] – let us look at what Scripture reveals if we assume that such an assertion is true.

This is an important exercise because this new view is being supported and taught by more and more Christians, and is usually combined with the denial of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. Indeed, I am afraid the real reason for their new understanding of monogenes has less to do with any new linguistic data, but has more to do with their need to marginalize the doctrine of eternal generation. 

And what is sad is this wholesale conversion of the modern Christian to this new way of thinking  is being aided by the  acceptance of such newer versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV and a multitude of other paraphrases as the Message, Contemporary English Version, etc. which Christians do not know are misleading.  And the greater tragedy of this all is that many Christians do not know that such a view destroys the unity of the Godhead and actually contradicts the Historic Christian Faith.

Now to be fair, such teachers think they are protecting the deity of the Lord by their denial of the eternal generation of the Son, but, beloved, this betrays a lack of true Trinitarian understanding. 

The doctrine of the eternal generation does not lessen the deity of our Lord or reduce the nature of his Person. Instead, the doctrine actually strengthens the Lord’s deity and shows him to be equal to the Father. It shows that true equality is understood by order and submission, not by a mutual autocracy.  Consequently, in contradiction to this new mindset, the terms Father and Son are revelatory and do show forth the primacy of the Father within the Godhead.

The doctrine of eternal generation has always been confessed by godly men throughout the history of the church, and this new view that is being silently foisted upon the unsuspecting Christian by all the new Bible translations has actually always been considered a grievous error. 

Consider the testimony of John Gill in his treatise A Dissertation Concerning The Eternal Sonship of Christ, Showing By Whom It Has Been Denied and Opposed, and By Whom Asserted and Defended in All Ages of Christianity

“Upon the whole, setting aside the said persons, the testimonies for and against the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ stand thus:

For Eternal Generation, etc.

Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory of Neocaesaria, Dionysius of Alexandria, the three hundred and eighteen Nicene Fathers; Athanasius, Alexander bishop of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Hilary, Faustinus, Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, Ruffinus, Cyril of Jerusalem, besides the many hundreds of bishops and presbyters assembled at different times and in different places, as at Syrmium, Antioch, Arminum, Seleucia, and Constantinople, and elsewhere;

Augustine, Chrysostom, Leo Magnus, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Paulinus, Flavianus, Victor, Maximus Tauriensis, six hundred and thirty fathers in the council at Chalcedon; Fulgentius, Gregory Furnensis, Fortunatus, Cassiodorus, Gregorius Magnus, the many bishops in the several councils at Toletum, the Roman synod of a hundred and twenty-five under Agatho, Damascene, Beda, Albinus, and the fathers in the council of Frankfort, with many others in later times, and all the sound divines and evangelic churches since the reformation.

Against It,

Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and Ebion, and their respective followers; Carpocrates and the Gnostick, Valentinus, Theodotus the currier, Artemon, and others their associates; Beryllus of Bostra, Praxeas, Hermogenes, Noetus and Sabellius, the Samosatenians, Arians, Aetians, Eunomians and Photinians, the Priscillianists and Bonotians; Mohammed and his followers; the Socinians and Remonstrants; and all Anti-trinitarians.

Now since it appears that all the sound and orthodox writers have unanimously declared for the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ in all ages, and that those only of an unsound mind and judgment…have declared against it, such must be guilty of great temerity and rashness to join in an opposition with the one against the other; and to oppose a doctrine the Church of God has always held, and especially being what the scriptures abundantly bear testimony unto, and is a matter of such moment and importance, being a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, and indeed what distinguishes it from all other religions, from those of Pagans, Jews and Mohammedans, who all believe in God, and generally in one God, but none of them believe in the Son of God: that is peculiar to the Christian religion.”

And bringing it up to modern times we could add men to that list such as, J. G. Bellett, William Kelly, Bishop Ellicott, Henry Alford, C.H.Spurgeon, Andrew Murry, Robert Jamieson, R.C.H. Lenski, Louis Berkhoff, Henry C. Thiessen, D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones, H.A. Ironside, C.S. Lewis, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., and John Walvoord to name a few.  Needless to say it has always been part of the Historic Christian Faith to declare that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Eternal Son of God, begotten before all time, being known as the “Only-Begotten” Son of God. However, we are getting away from the main purpose of this paper.

Let’s assume that the modern linguists are right and that monogenes should be understood as “one of a kind” and not as “only begotten.” Let’s assume that the second half of the word comes only from genos and not also from the Greek word gennao. Does it change anything regarding the doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation from the Father? No! Absolutely not, although, non-processionalists would like one to think it does negate the doctrine. (This new teaching is spreading more and more and such teachers are not admitting their departure from this aspect of the Faith, so, perhaps, it is time to give a name to the new teachers who hold to this viewpoint– non-processionalist).

You see, the problem is not the grammar or linguistic etymology of the word. The problem is that many modern Christian teachers today have departed from this aspect of the Historic Christian Faith, and are not willing to admit such departure because it might call into question their orthodoxy before men. Instead, they are re-interpreting the Faith to support their viewpoint, and are using a common technique of obscurification to facilitate this transformation of the Faith.  The net result is that a cloud of darkness is descending upon the minds of unsuspecting Christians, obscuring a precious truth of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Listen to what the Historic Christian Faith has always said about this truth of our Saviour. The Nicene Creed says this –

            “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten of  His Father before all time, Light of  Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became Man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended unto the heavens and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end:

            And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceeded from the Father, who with Father and Son is worshipped together.”^[2]

In modern times, one has the example of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which affirmed the same truth and declared it this way:

                

            “In the unity of the Godhead there be Three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.”^[3]

 

Or the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which stated:

 

            “In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, (I John v.7; Matt. xxviii, 19; II Cor. X111. 14) the Father, the Word (or Son), and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each have the whole divine essence, yet the (Exod. iii. 14; John xiv. 11; I Cor. vii. 6) essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is (John I. 14,18) eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit (John xv. 26; Gal. Iv. 6) proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore, but one God.”^[4]

 

We could go on, but let is suffice to state that all major Protestant Confessions and Statement of Faiths have affirmed the same truth. (e. g. Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, Ausburg Confession, Belgic Confession, etc.)

             In other words, the Historic Christian Faith has always held that the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all time and as such was known as the Only Begotten (monogenes) Son of God.

Now let me repeat the original premise of this paper. “I believe there is absolute evidence that the translation of monogenes as Only Begotten is the correct translation, but let presuppose for the sake of argument that those who deny it are right. What does it then teach us according to Scripture?” Does it nullify the doctrine of eternal generation?

 To answer that question let’s take the paragraph above and substitute the new understanding of monogenes in the summarizing sentence I wrote above concerning the Historic Christian Faith concerning the Person of Christ.

“In other words, the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all time and as such was known as the One and Only (monogenes) Son,”

Or,

 “In other words, the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all time and as such was known as the One of a Kind (monogenes) Son.”

Does it change the fact that the Son was eternally generated by the Father before all time? No! It simply changes his title from “Only Begotten Son” to “One and Only Son.”

However, many Christians do not realize this and they are not being told that this new linguistic twist on the Greek word monogenes doesn’t really change the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father at all! Instead, they are being assured that the new understanding does contradict the doctrine.  But the new non-processionalist teachers are forgetting some important facts.

  First, they are forgetting the revelatory word “Son. The word “Son of God” is used approximately 46 times in the New Testament. You see, the idea of generation is still included in the title “one and only” Son,” because of the revelatory word “Son.”

 However, non-processionalists will usually tell you the word “Son” is used as a Semitic idiom that has more to do with “purpose,” “nature,” “character,” or member of a trade or class,” rather than bespeaking “generation.” They imply that the word “Son” is used in the sense of His office within the Divine economy, rather than the subsistence of nature.

For instance, this Semitic idiom is used in such phrases as “son of perfumers” in Neh. 3:8 NKJV, or “sons of the prophets” in I Kings 20:35.  Now, I agree this speaks of character.  For instance, the phrase “son of the prophets” would refer to one who had the character of the prophets, or was a member of the prophetic class, or took on the prophetic office, and not necessarily meaning he was a literal son of a prophet.  However, one needs to notice one thing in this idiom, when it is used with this connotation, it almost always used in the plural. It is plural, “sons of the prophets,” not singular, “son of a prophet.” If it was singular and read “son of a prophet,” one would understand it was referring to a literal son of prophet.

When it is plural it can be used in an idiomatic manner, when it is singular it is normally used in its derivative manner. And so, when it comes to the usage associated with our Lord, guess what, it is always used in the singular. Scripture says “Son of God,” not that He was of the “sons of the God.” It is not being used in the above mentioned idiomatic manner when referring to our Lord. 

The term “Son of God” is not telling the reader that the Son is divine, with no derivative relationship to God, like the idiom “son of the prophets” tells the reader that one has the characteristics of the prophets, without implying such a one was literally born of a prophet.  No, it is being used to tell the reader the Son is divine because he is “of” God.  He is divine because he has a special derivative relationship to God who is divine. He is divine because he is eternally begotten from God the Father who is properly divine. He is literally the Son “of” God.

Next the word “son” in the Bible is sometimes used in the sense of possessing a certain characteristic as “son of valor” (I Sam 14:52 Young’s Literal Translation). This means the person was courageous. It is true this idiom carries no idea of generation.

However, this idiom is never used of our Lord in the New Testament. It is used only few times in the New Testament in such places as – Luke 10:6, which calls a certain one a “son of peace,” John 17:12, which  calls Judas the “son of perdition,” Acts 4:36, which calls Barnabas a “son of encouragement,” etc.. It is never used of the Lord.

The term, that is used over and over for our Lord, is the term “Son of God,” and “Son of Man.” These terms are not used with the Semitic meanings above. They are used in the normal sense of derivation. Christ is the Son “of” God, meaning he is “of” God, or from God the Father. It is used in the same sense when Christ is stated to be the son “of” David, or son “of” Abraham.

When Matthew uses that terminology in his genealogy in Matt. 1:1, he is telling us that Christ was a descendent of David and of Abraham. His humanity was “derived” from them. He was humanly “generated” from them. Christ is said to be born of the seed of David (Rom. 1:3). He proceeded forth from David. Remember, in Jewish usage one was considered to be in the loins of one’s ancestors. Thus Levi could be considered to be of Abraham, even though Levi was the great grandson of Abraham (Heb. 7:5-10).

The revelatory word “Son,” chosen by the Holy Spirit, bespeaks derivation, and this also explains why Christ is known as the “Son of Man.” Yes, no doubt it was used as a Messianic title reminding us of the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13, and yes it also reminds us of Ezekiel’s title “son of man,” but those titles were titles that spoke of derivation and humiliation. Daniel was called “son of man” (Dan. 8:17), and, of course, Ezekiel was called “son of man,” but these were titles given to men who saw great visions and mighty angels of God. They were given this title to remind them that they were simply “men,” one’s made lower than angels (Ps. 8:4-5). They were being reminded that they were simply from Adam their father. They were not powerful angels, but humble men, and so should not be lifted up by their great visions. It reminds us of Paul’s humiliation after he also saw great visions (II Cor. 12:1-7).

And so, when we come to this title of our Lord, we are reminded of His humiliation (Phil. 2:7-8) and His derivation from the first Man.  He is the Son of Man because he literally was the “Son of Adam (Man).” Remember, “Adam” is many times translated simply as “man,” for he was the first Man. Christ not only took on the “seed of Abraham” (Heb. 2:16), he, obviously, also took on the seed of Adam, for Christ was the promised “seed,” (Genesis 3:15).

Christ not only had to be “of” God, being consubstantial with God, in order to secure our salvation, he also had to be “of” Man, being consubstantial (in a limited way) with Man, in order to save our souls. That is why he is the only one who can save mankind. He is the Son of God, as to his deity, because he proceeded from God (Jn. 8:42), and the Son of Man as to his humanity, because he proceeded from Adam (Luke 3:23-38).

If one disagrees and believes the term “Son of Man” is simply an idiom bespeaking his humanity, such a one cannot ignore that such an idiom is based upon a biblical reality. He literally took upon himself the likeness of sinful flesh by being “of” Mary, “of” David, “of” Abraham, “of” Eve, and ultimately, as Luke 3:38 says, “of” Adam (Man).

Moreover, when it comes to the word “Son” in the revelatory term “Son of God,” and some say it does carry the normal meaning of generation, in other words, being begotten of God, but is used in the sense that the word “son” simply meant to designate ones nature, in this case, since he was the Son of God, he would have the same nature as God, meaning divine, they must understand that they are denying a doctrine that has always been considered orthodox and part of the Historic Christian Faith.

They do not realize that if the Son has the nature of God, ungenerate, meaning He was not begotten of God, but still considered divine for his nature is like God, they are in reality teaching Semi-Arianism. In this case, Christ could only be of “like substance” or nature (homoiousios) with the Father, but not the same substance (homoousios) of the Father, which is the Orthodox viewpoint. If one has the divine substance eternally without generation, such a one cannot have the “same” substance. They are not truly consubstantial. They only have “like substance.”

Now, truly, it may be still be a divine substance, but it is a divided substance. In other words, the Father has a substance that is divine, the Son has a substance that is divine, and the Holy Spirit has a substance that is divine – three divine substances. That is not biblical “consubstantiality.” And if they are not consubstantial, one simply has a triad and not the Trinity. This is the danger of this new way of thinking. The ultimate result is Tritheism, the belief in three Gods.

Moreover, that fact that the above point is fallacious is shown by the fact that Christ is not simply called the “Son of God,” (meaning “divine” in their scenario, apart from all generation, a simple Semitic idiom not meant to convey derivation), he is also specifically called the “Son of the Father” in II John 1:3.

The phrase “Son of the Father” could never be called a Semitic idiom. John in his epistle is specifically affirming that he is “of” the Father, in the sense of derivation. He is divine because he was begotten or eternally generated of the Father, and as such received in that eternal begetting or generation, the “same substance” of God the Father without diminution or division. He is God because he is “of” the Father. He is God because he is “of” God. This is what the phrase “very God of very God” means in the Churches earliest standardized “Statement of Faith” – the Nicene Creed.

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten of  His Father before all time, Light of  Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made.”

The apostle John clearly tells us that Christ is the “Son of the Father,” and the normal and plain meaning of the  phrase, Son of the Father, means one who is generated by the other.

Remember, the apostle John had his hands full with heretical teachers and Gnostics who continually distorted the true faith. I do not think that the apostle John would create more problems for himself by introducing “sloppy language” concerning the nature of Christ.

That would be all he would need! Just imagine, he would be saying to himself, “Because I was careless in my language, some people are actually thinking I meant the Son was “generated”  by the Father!”  “How could I have been so careless in my language?” “If I had only been clearer in what I wrote.”[5]

That would be absurd to think that John would make such a statement or make such a mistake and create such a mess for himself. No, John meant just what he said, Christ was the “Son of the Father,” and when one accepts that plain language of John, one has no problem with “eternal generation,” for if he was generated by the Father, when did that occur?  John would not think it occurred in some distant time, for that would contradict what he said in John 1:1. So in John’s mind when did that generation occur?  He would say in eternity because he would know the prophetic Scripture of Micah 5:2, which says his “goings forth” were from everlasting.

In addition, even the demons understood this meaning of derivation. The demons in Mark 5:7 specifically called him the “Son of the Most High God.” Remember, one of the first rules of hermeneutics is to follow the plain and literal sense of the text, unless the context indicates otherwise. They knew who Jesus was. The plain sense means he was the “Son,” in its normal meaning, of the Most High God.  He was the eternal Son of God by eternal generation. All normal understanding of language would mean he came from God. He was generated by God. Even the demons knew this. They knew he was God for he was eternally “of” God.

This is the revelatory word that the Holy Spirit applies to the second Person of the blessed Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not trying to fool us. Revelation is for the purpose of understanding. The Second Person of the Trinity is called Son because he was begotten from the first Person of the Trinity – the Father from all of eternity. The words “Father” and “Son” are revelatory words given to us by Holy Spirit to teach us ontological relationships within the Trinity.

They have been understood in this way from the earliest times of the Church, and it is only lately that a new connotation has been given to these two revelatory words. The word “Son” carries its normal meeting when used of our Lord, whether it is the phrase “Son of God,” “Son of the Father,” Son of Man,” “Son of David,” “Son of Abraham,” or “Son of the Most High God.” They all bespeak derivation of a son from a father, and in these cases, the eternal derivation of the Son, from an eternal Father.

Secondly, they are forgetting the main connotation of genos.  When they state that -genes should be understood as being related to genos and not gennao, and that, as such, genos means “kind,” or “class,” they are not giving the reader all varied meanings of genos.

You see, dear reader, genos means more than “kind,” or “class,” it also means “offspring.” It is wrong to suggest that monogenes can only be rendered as “one and only,” or “one of a kind,” it could also be rendered as “only offspring,” which brings us right back to the original meaning of “only begotten.” If one is an “only offspring,” one must be by definition “only begotten.”

Let me list below all the verses that contain the word genos as recorded in the New Testament and one will be able to see all the varied meanings. All verses are from the King James Version.

 

Matt. 13:47  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind (genos)

 

Matt. 17:21  Howbeit this kind (genos) goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

 

Mk. 7:26  The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation (genos) and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

 

Mk. 9:29  And he said unto them, This kind (genos) can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

 

Acts 4:6  And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred (genos) of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.

 

Acts 4:36  And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country (genos) of Cyprus,

                               

Acts 7:13  And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph’s kindred (genos) was made known unto Pharaoh.

 

Acts 7:19  The same dealt subtilly with our kindred (genos)and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.

 

Acts 13:26  Men and brethren, children of the stock (genos)of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

 

Acts 17:28  For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring (genos).

 

Acts 17:29  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring (genos)of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

 

Acts 18:2  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born (genos)in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

 

Acts 18:24  And a certain Jew named Apollos, born (genos)at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

 

1Cor. 12:10  To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds (genos) of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

 

1Cor. 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities (genos)of tongues.

 

1Cor. 14:10  There are, it may be, so many kinds (genos)of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

 

2Cor. 11:26  In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen (genos), in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

 

Gal. 1:14  And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation (genos), being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

 

Phil. 3:5  Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock (genos)of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

 

1Pet. 2:9  But ye are a chosen generation (genos), a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

 

Rev. 22:16  I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring  (genos) of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

When we read these verses we notice that it is used twenty-one times in the New Testament and is translated as follows – kind 3, offspring 3, kindred 3, kinds 2, nation 2, stock 2, born 2, diversities 1, country 1, countrymen 1 and generation 1. 

Notice that genos is understood as “offspring” in such verses as Acts 17:28; Acts 17:29; and Rev. 22:16. If –genes, in monogenes, should be understood by genos and not gennao, as we are being told, and in the above listed verses it is clear that genos means “offspring,” why then does not the non-processionalist translate monogenes as “Only Offspring?” The reason is because the etymology of monogenes is not the real issue. The real reason is that they reject the doctrine of eternal generation, and they are attempting to discredit the doctrine by altering the meaning of monogenes.  As was mentioned at the beginning of this paper, there is ample evidence that monogenes should be translated as “only begotten.” But, even, if we grant them their viewpoint that it should not be translated in that way, they are still not translating the word by its majority meaning. 

Let me give you another example. Rev. 22:16 reads,  “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring  (genos) of David, and the bright and morning star.” How does our Lord use the word “genos?”  He uses it in the sense of derivation, or generation. He calls himself the “Genos” (Offspring) of David. Christ, according to Scripture was literally descended from David (Rom. 1:3; II Tim. 2:8).

            Therefore, if Christ uses the word genos with a connotation of generation, why do they reject that meaning of the word when the Holy Spirit uses that same source word in monogenes (according to their understanding), when speaking of the Son’s generation from God the Father? 

What the Holy Spirit was telling the world was that God so loved the world that he gave His “Only Offspring” (monogenes), His Only Begotten Son, to die upon the cross for our sins.  Genos, in the Lord’s mind and in the Holy Spirit’s mind, carried the sense of derivation and generation. Why do not the non-processionalist speak of this? 

Let’s continue. It is understood as “born” in Acts 18:2 and Acts 18:24 (could not one say, then, he should be understood as the “Only Born Son?”). It is understood as “stock” in Acts 13:26 and Phil. 3:5. All these uses give the idea of “begotteness,” “generation” or “derivation” and still support the doctrine of eternal generation.

Or let us take such verses as Acts 4:6; Acts 7:13, and Acts 7:19, which translate the word as “kindred.” It also carries the idea of “generation,” or “derivation.” One cannot be of the same kindred unless he has proceeded or been generated from a common ancestor.  Why is this not brought out by the non-processionalist?

Now let us look as those verses where it is translated “kind,” (which is the definition they adopt for genos). It is translated as kind in three verses – Matt. 13:47; Matt. 17:21; Mark 9:29. Two of the verses it is used, as they correctly state, in the sense of “class” without any sense of derivation– Matt. 17:21 and Mark 9:29. But in one of those three verses it is used in the sense of species – Matt. 13:47. Amazing! Even in the verses where it is translated by the word they want to adopt for genes – the word “kind,”  in one of the three verses it still carries the sense of “generation” or “derivation,” but you will not hear this important point mentioned.

Let us look closely at that one verse. Matt. 13:47 speaks of every “kind” of fish being gathered in a net.  Different species of fish are of the same “kind” because they have descended from the first species God created long ago, whom he told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters (Gen. 1:21-22). God created everything after its own “kind.” Everything has “proceeded” or been “generated” from those first creatures. “Kind” in this verse refers to species, and if one is not of the same “kind,” one cannot procreate. This third use of “kind” obviously is understood through the concept of “generation.”

  The only other instance out of these 21 verses where genos does not seem to carry any sense or association with “derivation” is I Cor. 12:10, I Cor. 12:28 and I Cor. 14:10.  In these three verses the word carries no sense of “derivation,” (although some may disagree with me because someone may say one usually speaks the same language of one’s kind or kindred so that  there is some sense of “derivation” when it is used in these verses), but that seems to be stretching the sense of the word, so I think, in these three verses, I would agree with the non-processionalist that the word is used in the sense of “type” or “class” with no thought of “derivation.”

All the other references such as “nation” (Gal. 1:14), “generation” (I Pet. 2:9), or “stock” (Phil. 3:5) all carry the sense of “offspring,” “generation,” or “derivation.”

And so out of all the usages of genos in the New Testament only 5 are used with no sense of “offspring” or “derivation,” 16 are used in such a way that the word carries the idea of “derivation” in its usage, meaning over 75% of the usages of the word carry the sense of “offspring” or “derivation.” Why then do non-processionalist say that because the -genes in monogenes is associated with genos and not gennao, it negates the doctrine of procession of the Son from the Father?  Why do they claim it nullifies the doctrine of eternal generation? They are not being forthright with their listeners and/or readers for they are leaving out the important connotation of the word, and are emphasizing a minor connotation of genos (kind or type), and ignoring the primary connotation of genos (offspring or the sense of derivation).

Let’s look at one last verse that uses genos, because of all the verses of genos this verse succinctly explains the truth of John’s use of monogenes in John 1:14, 18, (assuming the reading “Son” as in the NKJV, and not “God” in verse 18).

Acts 13:26  Men and brethren, children(sons)  of the stock (genos) of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

 

In this verse Paul speaks of those “descended” of Abraham. He speaks to those sons who were of the “stock” (genos) of Abraham, in other words, his kindred, his seed, and his kind.  The word speaks of “derivation” from Abraham. They were of his “kind,” so to speak. So even if we use the understanding of the word genes as “kind,” when speaking of the Son of God, not “kind,” as “class” or “type,” as the non-processionalist use, but “kind” as used in the relationship of the “kind” or “stock” of Abraham, would we not be speaking of the “derivation” of the Son from the Father, as Paul spoke of the “derivation” of the sons of Israel from their father, Abraham? 

Would it not be saying that the Son was of the “stock,” or “kind” of the Father? Most certainly! Indeed, He was not only of the “stock” or “kind” of the Father, he was “of” the “same” “stock” or “kind” of the Father. This teaches us a very important truth.

In the book of Genesis we are told God created everything “after its kind” (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24 and 25).  Every species is of the same kind and thus possesses the same nature. This is a revelatory picture of a precious truth within the Godhead, albeit in a limited way.[6]

In the Godhead, if you will, there are three of the same “kind,” or “stock” – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As the sons are of the same kind (genos) as their father Abraham, so too the Son and the Holy Spirit[7] are of the same kind as the Father. No one else in the entire universe is of the “same kind” as the Father, except the Son and the Holy Spirit. In Nicene Creed this is called “homoousios” meaning of the same substance or in today’s terminology consubstantial. And since the Father eternally communicates this substance, without diminution, to the second Person of the Blessed Trinity in his eternal begetting, he is known as the “Only Begotten,” or (if one accepts the association of -genes with genos) “Only Offspring,” Only Born,” “Only Kind” Son of the Father’s begetting.

Consequently, one can clearly see, that the word monogenes still teaches us the truth of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, whether you translate it as “Only Begotten,” with -genes from gennao, or “Only Kind,” with -genes from genos! (Of course, this is only true if “kind” is not understood as “class” or “type.” The Son cannot be of a “class” or “kind” of His own, for that would negate His consubstantiality with the Father, but if “kind” is used in its derivative sense, then the Son would be “of the same kind” as the Father, albeit, without any separation or diminution of substance).

How precious is this truth!  He is the “Only Offspring” Son of God, the “Only Born” Son of God, the “Only Stock” Son of God.  If non-processionalists want to assert that -genes is related to genos and not gennao, so be it. But do not let them tell you it negates the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of God. It does not change the fact at all. He still is very God “of” very God. He still eternally proceeds from the Father (Jn. 8:42; 16:28-30; 17:8). He is the “Only Begotten” or “Only Born” Son of God, not in the sense that there was a time when He was not, and then there was a time when He was.  He never had a beginning because His was an eternal begetting, an eternal coming forth.[8]

And so, dear brethren, do not be misled by the new teaching concerning the Son that is being quietly being foisted upon unsuspecting Christians. Do not accept the grievous error of non-processionalist. The Son is still the “Only Begotten” of the Father, begotten before all ages, as the Historic Christian Faith has always affirmed, whether he receives that title from monogenes or he does not.