The Begetting, Coming Into Existence, of the Son of God
September 13th, 2010 by Mark C.
The following article by Anthony Buzzard is from the August 2010 issue of Focus on the Kingdom:Â
What does the word “beget†mean? Definitions are easy to come by. Just type the word into a search engine, or consult a dictionary anywhere. To beget is “to sire, to father, to bring into existence, to procreate, to generate.â€
This word is crucial to our understanding of who Jesus, the Son of God, is. For centuries churches bearing the name of Christ argued over whether the Son had a beginning of existence or not. Of course there is a vast difference between a person who has no beginning and one who comes into existence, that is, has a beginning of existence.
So what does the Bible say about Jesus, the Son of God? The answer is very easy as long as one is able to process simple information and begin at the right place. The place to start is in Matthew and Luke. Both these biblical writers major on the story of the begetting of Jesus. They thus inform us in detail of how and when the Son of God began to exist, was begotten, that is procreated. Matthew 1:1 uses a noun related to begetting. It is the word “genesis.†It means of course beginning. Jesus’ family history is to be announced by Matthew. Jesus is introduced as being the descendant (son) of Abraham and the descendant of David. Is that clear? In Matthew 1:18 Matthew picks up the same word “genesisâ€: “The beginning, genesis, of Jesus was as follows…†Matthew focuses in on the beginning, procreation, begetting, coming into existence, origin of Jesus as the Son of God.
There is no possible doubt or ambiguity in these accounts of who Jesus is and how he began. The language is un-complex and of course was written to be understood! Matthew 1:20, two verses later, tells us more about this begetting of Jesus. Please note the slight “fudging†of the original Greek in some translations here. Your translation probably tells you that Joseph was reassured to learn that what Mary “conceived†in her womb was from the spirit of God. Actually the Greek is more specific. It reads “what is begotten,†i.e., fathered, brought into existence, is from the spirit. Begetting is the work of a father. In this crucial verse God had a Son, using His operational presence and power, His spirit, to procreate that Son. God in other words brought the Son into existence, caused him to exist — begat him. Language has no clearer way of telling you that the Son of God was brought into existence by miracle in Mary. The Son was caused to be, generated, fathered, sired. Yes, of course Mary conceived a baby but the text (Matt. 1:20) tells us of the Father’s miraculous activity in begetting a Son.
Is this clear, and do you believe it? This account defines who the Son of God is. He is a procreated, generated, fathered person. God was his Father and this happened when a biological miracle was wrought in the womb of a young Jewess, probably about 16 years old. None of this is the slightest bit difficult — until of course we listen to the words of the churches which make this matchlessly simple account into something quite different!
But before explaining what the church has done to make a simple account impossibly complex, let us see how beautifully Luke reinforces what we just learned from Matthew. In Luke Mary is visited by Gabriel, when Elizabeth was six months pregnant with John the Baptist. Once again the account is not complex. It was written by the historian and Bible expert Luke and designed to convey unambiguous information to promote and confirm the Christian faith.
The angel is addressing a sixteen-year-old. He intends to be understood! The angel begins with these words: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus†(Lk. 1:30-31). Nothing difficult about this information. Then this: “He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father†(1:32). The baby to be conceived will be God’s Son. Now information about the destiny of this Son of God: “And he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end†(1:33). Next Mary’s very reasonable question: “But Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?’†(1:34). The reply of Gabriel, God’s messenger: “The holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God†(1:35).
The original Greek here gives us this: The child to be begotten, brought into existence, generated will be the Son of God. This repeats the information we found in Matthew 1:1, 18, 20.
We are at a crucial and defining moment with this easy explanation from Gabriel. The angel actually provides an exact definition of the title Son of God. It is rare that a Bible verse comes with its own built-in clarification. But here we have the Bible’s perfect definition of “Son of God.†Jesus is the Son of God precisely because of the miracle worked in Mary. “For this reason he will be the Son of God.†The miraculous begetting and conception provides the simple reason for Jesus being the Son of God. He has no human father. He is the Son of God and God is his Father!
Alas, the Church overturned this crystal clear account of the origin of the Son of God. By 150 AD, 50 years later than the end of the New Testament period, that Son of God had been invested with a pre-history as Son. This meant that the words of Gabriel were derailed and disregarded. The reason for Jesus being the Son of God was no longer the miracle in Mary. The Son was given a “beginningless beginning,†a so-called “eternal generation.†These terms involved manipulating the meaning of the words “beget, originate, cause to exist.†They were flatly contradicted, removed from the record and invested with non-meanings — meanings they nowhere else ever had! The conversation between Gabriel and Mary was frankly turned into nonsense, made incomprehensible. Matthew and Luke present us with the true Son of God — a human being who is Son of God by supernatural divine procreation. Later church councils forced on the Church a Son of God whose origin was literally in eternity, by “eternal generation.†The historical Son of God was buried under a strange tradition involving interference with simple words. Listen to the telling, if rather understated, comment of a leading commentator on Luke 1:35. Ponder this amazing twist suffered by the easy words of Gabriel to Mary: “Later church tradition made something quite other out of this verse†(Fitzmyer, Anchor Bible
Commentary). Justin Martyr believed that the spirit and power of God were God the Son preexisting his birth. John Is Not to Be Pitted Against Matthew and Luke.
It is most unwise to begin to contradict these lucid accounts of Matthew and Luke by setting John’s gospel against them! John was fully aware of the accounts of Matthew and Luke and certainly did not imagine setting them aside. John spoke of the eternal plan of God to procreate His unique Son. John spoke not of a “Word†(capitalized in our translations, with no authority for this in the original Greek!). John did not contradict Matthew and Luke by saying “In the beginning was the Son of God.†He spoke rather of God’s eternal purpose, His word, to bring into existence His uniquely begotten, i.e. fathered, sired, procreated Son. John is in complete agreement with Matthew and Luke and Scripture is not thrown into confusion. The word, the promise of the Son, became the human being, Jesus the Son of God. John simply complements Luke’s and Matthew’s accounts. John is to be read in the light of Matthew and Luke and not twistedin a way which contradicts them. Luke 1:35 gives us an unqualified statement about the basis for which Jesus is the Son of God. It is because he was brought into existence supernaturally by the Father.
God is the Father of Jesus. Joseph is not his biological father, and Jesus is thus the Son of God.
We are dealing here with extremely simple concepts and words and there is no valid excuse for misunderstanding the easy language of begetting or generating. Does anyone stumble when he reads Proverbs 23:22: “Listen to your father who begat you, and despise not your mother when she is old�
You and I came into existence when our fathers begat us. So according to Matthew and Luke did the Son of God. This makes him a real human being. The dissolving of the simple word “beget†into nonsense caused a completely erroneous creedal definition of the Son to arise. It was then uncritically accepted as true by billions!
Proverbs 23:23 counsels us to “Get the truth, and sell it not — wisdom, instruction and understanding.†The next verse reads like this: “The father of a just man will exult with glee; he who begets a wise son will have joy in him.†On what possible grounds could one misunderstand the word “beget� Apply the same simplicity and honesty to Matthew 1:18, 20 and Luke 1:35 and you will have unlocked the secret to who the Son of God is, and the basis for calling him God’s Son. There is no existence of the Son before his coming into existence. That really is not a hard concept. It is laid out for us at the beginning of our New Testaments and confirmed by the whole Bible. By the “beginning†of the New Testament everyone knows I mean Matthew. By the “genesis†(Matt. 1:1, 18) and begetting of the Son of God (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35), everyone can know with equal certainty that the Son of God was a procreated person. This event happened some 2000 years ago. Jesus is the man Messiah. There is no other true Messiah.
This precious information was derailed by the hopelessly confusing introduction of an alien meaning of “begetting.†C.S. Lewis, saddled with trying to defend his church tradition, tells us that the begetting of the Son is comparable to two books leaning on each other. They have done this for eternity! But Lewis has butchered the word “beget.†One book leaning on another does not tell us that one book “begat†or “generated†the other! The analogy is false and Matthew’s and Luke’s inspired theology is left in ruins. A return to the sane language of Matthew 1:1, 18, 20 and Luke 1:35 will bring real revival to Bible study and a unifying center for Christian faith. “Theology†falsely so-called plunged the Church into confusion from the second century on and the church councils wrote in stone, with threats of excommunication for dissenters, the labored and confusing results of banning the actual meaning of “beget.†The origin of the Son of God is not in eternity but in the womb of his mother some 2000 years ago. That means that Jesus really is a human person, not an eternal God-Person with a generic humanity! Mary had a baby, and that son of David, and of Mary and of God is the Messiah, our Savior.
Â
Mark writes-God is the Father of Jesus. Joseph is not his biological father, and Jesus is thus the Son of God. You and I came into existence when our fathers begat us. So according to Matthew and Luke (so) did the Son of God. This makes him a real human being
Response…God does not beget children according to the flesh.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a human being
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit
Michael – so then was Adam a spirit?
Michael,
First, I didn’t write this article, it was by Anthony Buzzard.
Second, the context of John 3 is about the New Birth which is defined elsewhere in the NT. It has nothing to do with how Jesus came into existence.
Third, if “God does not beget children according to the flesh” (which is not stated anywhere in the Bible) then what do you make of the clear descriptions in Matthew and Luke that the article talks about?
“Third, if “God does not beget children according to the flesh†(which is not stated anywhere in the Bible) then what do you make of the clear descriptions in Matthew and Luke that the article talks about? ”
Mark
Actually it does make a clear description and that not about God fathering anyone. ITS ABOUT A FUTURE KING BEING BORN WHICH ALL KINGS ARE THE SONS OF GOD BT ADOPTION JUST LIKE JESUS BECAME. TO DAVID IT WAS SAID “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” But did God actually begat him that day or did he adopt him. when this is spoken of Jesus which is NEVER DONE before his baptism it also cant mean God literally begat Jesus but by Adoption JESUS WAS CALLED THE SON OF GOD JUST LIKE THE BIRTH NARRATIVE SAYS WOULD HAPPEN.
But who wants to follow the clear when it can be rewritten in the minds of great story tellers
Mark writes- First, I didn’t write this article, it was by Anthony Buzzard.
Response…You posted it so to whom should I respond?
Mark writes- Second, the context of John 3 is about the New Birth which is defined elsewhere in the NT. It has nothing to do with how Jesus came into existence.
Response…How Jesus came into existence and how he was begotten by God is not the same event. You are making the same assumption that Nicodemus made when he contemplated that being born of the Spirit had something to do with birth from a human female.
Mark writes- if “God does not beget children according to the flesh†(which is not stated anywhere in the Bible)
Response… That which is born of the Spirit is not flesh.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a human being
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit
Mark writes- what do you make of the clear descriptions in Matthew and Luke that the article talks about?
Response- God does not state that Jesus is His Son according to the flesh so why do you insist that Matthew and John do?
Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet (David), and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Antioch writes- so then was Adam a spirit?
Response-Why limit your question to Adam, is any believer a spirit when they are born of God? Do you believe that you have been born of God?
….Jesus was not adopted.
Michael,
No problem with you addressing me, I just wanted to clarify that I didn’t write the article.
How Jesus came into existence and how he was begotten by God is the subject of the very clear records in Matthew and Luke. That was the point of the article. I made no assumption about being born of the spirit, since that is not the subject of the records in question. The new birth Jesus was talking about in John 3 (and defined elsewhere in the NT) is a spiritual birth, which is an entirely different subject from the begetting/conception of Jesus Christ.
Jesus being a descendant of David “according to the flesh” refers to the fact that on the physical side he was of the lineage of David, through his mother. But the records of his origin in Matthew and Luke clearly show that he was supernaturally begotten in Mary’s womb. You may want to reread those passages.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a human being.
Unitarian definition…God gave something of Himself to the conception in a human betrothed virgin human female the result is a human being.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit
Unitarian definition…except in the case of Jesus where that which was born of the Spirit was flesh.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit.
Unitarian definition…but His offspring is human
Michael,
Your “Unitarian definitions” are nothing but straw man arguments. What we believe is clearly stated, both in the statements of faith on various Unitarian web sites, and in the article above.
Mark writes- Your “Unitarian definitions†are nothing but straw man arguments.
Response… This is your exact contradiction in terms.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a human being but God gives something of Himself to the conception in a human betrothed virgin human female the result is a human being.
Mark writes- What we believe is clearly stated,
Response…This is exactly what you believe.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit…except in the case of Jesus where that which was born of the Spirit was flesh.
Mark writes- the statements of faith on various Unitarian web sites, and in the article above.
Response… This is exactly what you write and believe.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit.…but His offspring is human
There is no straw man here; these are not misrepresentations of what you believe. In the face of these scriptures you still believe that God who is not a human being gave something of Himself in the conception of Jesus with a betrothed virgin human female and the offspring was human even though only one parent was human.
If you believe that you are being misrepresented then explain John 4:24 God is a Spirit and produces human offspring?
Explain how you are being misrepresented when John 3:6 states that “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit†but you believe that Jesus was born of the Spirit and was flesh.
Again, explain Numbers 23:19 God is not a human being but produces human offspring.
Michael – Adam was created by God and was a man. Jesus was created by God and cannot be a man? By your logic, Adam could not really have been a man.
Numbers 23:19 ‘God is not a human being’. Hmm – then Jesus is not God, no? Otherwise you contradict (among other verses) 1 Timothy 2:5 ‘For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus’. Jesus was a man, the Bible states that clearly. But trinitarians also consider him God, yet the Numbers verse you cite says that God is not a human being.
Your argument disproves your point.
“Jesus being a descendant of David “according to the flesh†refers to the fact that on the physical side he was of the lineage of David, through his mother.”
Mark
Prove this with one Clear fact out of the bible or a clear one from without.
If you use the source from without be sure to include who that source says Jesus’ father is and how the conception came about like rape by a roman.
If you cant its just a pure myth
Antioch writes- Jesus was created by God and cannot be a man?
Response…Mark claims that God gave something of Himself in the conception of Jesus as any father does; not that he was created by God but fathered by God using a female human being. I did not claim that Jesus was not a human being.
Antioch writes- ‘God is not a human being’. Hmm – then Jesus is not God, no?
Response…Jesus is not God
I never said “God gave something of Himself.” That phrase is not used in the Bible, and only crops up in these kinds of arguments. I believe God supernaturally begot Jesus in Mary’s womb, as the Bible clearly states.
Antioch,
Michael doesn’t like to give direct answers to direct questions and will instead give very short (uninformative) responses. So far he has revealed that he believes that Yeshua/Jesus is the ontological son of God but not actually God. Beyond that your guess is as good as mine since he so secretive about what it is he actually believes. We do know that he doesn’t like Unitarianism and loves to make insulting and sarcastic comments regarding our beliefs.
I stopped trying to get through to him, so that I could understand where he’s coming from, quite a while ago now…
DT – agreed, I’m moving on
Guys,
The position taken here by some of our friends is called “Adoptionist” Christology. We had this discussion a while ago. I’ll recover our exchange, and if I’m not mistaken, there’s some clarity I need from Michael.
As are others’ position on this, Jesus’ Sonship was realised and confirmed on various occasions: at the angelic announcement, the virgin birth, his childhood, his baptism, his transfiguration, his crucifixion, at his resurrection and ascension. All these events confirmed his eligibility to be the faithful Son of God.
Jaco
Mark writes-I never said “God gave something of Himself.†That phrase is not used in the Bible, and only crops up in these kinds of arguments. I believe God supernaturally begot Jesus in Mary’s womb, as the Bible clearly states.
Response…My question to you Mark on 08/03/2010…So again “Did God and Mary both give something of themselves to create Jesus†yes or no?
Your response Mark…..Yes.
Michael,
A question to you: Did God give something of himself when he created his human son, Adam? yes or no?
Jaco
“A question to you: Did God give something of himself when he created his human son, Adam? yes or no?”
Jaco
Interesting question
Actually when God Formed Adam he used the elements of the earth just as we are all made of the elements.So the answer is NO till after he was formed when he received the breath of life.
So if Jesus was human then God used the same elements to form him and even just a hair of Joseph would of been enough DNA to provided fathership by Joseph.
Thanks, Robert
So, did God give something of himself when he quickened the body of Adam with breath of life? (Michael may also share his thoughts). What about the angels (spirits themselves)? What did they inherit from God making them eligible for sonship?
Jaco
Michael,
This is why I don’t like the phrase, “God gave something of Himself” and why I don’t like reducing arguments to simple yes or no questions. The meaning and interpretation can get muddled in the context. The whole context of that question and my answer can be seen in the thread, How Important is Correct Doctrine?
It started with you making the statement:
To which I responded:
In response to that statement, you first posed the question:
I answered:
That should have been the end of it, as Matthew and Luke clarify any possible misunderstandings. But you went on:
In this context, we already have two possible meanings for “God gave something of Himself.” Are we talking about His godly “essence,” i.e. His “ontological being,” or are we talking about merely giving “life” which in a sense could be said to be “something of Himself.” (At this point, Jaco’s questions above become relevant.) I responded:
In the context, I was thinking in terms of God giving life to Jesus, and especially His Word becoming flesh. In that sense God “gave something of Himself” but in a different sense than what you were implying. In hindsight, I should not have given in to your insistence on a yes or no answer, as one can see how misleading the results tend to be.
So, in conclusion, do I believe God “gave something of Himself” in the begetting of Jesus? I would not use that phrase, as it is not used in the Bible and can have various meanings. I do not believe God gave some part of His “ontological being” which would make Jesus some kind of God-man (which is pretty much what Trinitarians believe). But I believe that God gave him life, and brought him into existence, by His very Word. In that sense only do I believe that God “gave something of Himself,” but in that sense He gave something of Himself – His Word – in the creation of all things.
I hope this clarifies what I believe. The bottom line is still that the records in Matthew and Luke clearly define exactly how God brought Jesus into existence. Let’s stick to that and not argue about hypothetical phrasing.
“So, did God give something of himself when he quickened the body of Adam with breath of life? ”
Jaco
Yes he gave Adam life just as he gave Jesus and ourselves life at birth.
I do not know how he brought angels into existance because we are not told.
What did they inherit from God making them eligible for sonship?
Jaco
there is no reference to how angels were created or to how the are sons of God but i am not sure that angelic beings are ever called the sons of God because if the messenger was a Son of God(lessor god) than his task would be defined as an angel but not be an angel.
But there is No verse within the whole bible that says Jesus was fathered by Yahweh but there are many references to Sons of God with the best refernce to adoption when God said to David “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.†and when he said the same thing to Jesus at his Baptism.
The fact this was spoken to Jesus is proof he wasnt already God’s son
God didn’t say “this day have I begotten thee” at Jesus’ baptism. He said “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”
Mark
Luke 3:22 in Codex Bezae , and several Latin
MSS and Church Fathers has it as “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee”.
It was the same men that brought the trinity into existance that changed the early copies of this verse.
Maybe you should do some research before using your reading
Jaco writes- Did God give something of himself when he created his human son, Adam? yes or no?
Response…No.
Jaco writes- So, did God give something of himself when he quickened the body of Adam with breath of life?
Response…No.
Mark writes- This is why I don’t like the phrase, “God gave something of Himself†and why I don’t like reducing arguments to simple yes or no questions. The meaning and interpretation can get muddled in the context.
Response…If you do not contribute something of yourself in the conception of a child then you have not fathered the child and no interpretation is necessary, yes or no works quite well.
Mark writes- Biblical Unitarians believe that God fathered Jesus, as presented in Matthew and Luke.
Response…To cause a pregnancy and to father a child are not the same event, God did not father Mary’s pregnancy.
Mark writes- I do not believe God gave some part of His “ontological beingâ€
Response…That is not what you wrote on the “Jesus Only Critique†thread you wrote… “I believe that “Son of God†is a title that was prophesied about the Messiah, Luke 1:35 indicates he was ontologically God’s Son as well. Both are trueâ€.
Mark writes- In the context, I was thinking in terms of God giving life to Jesus, and especially His Word becoming flesh. In that sense God “gave something of Himself†but in a different sense than what you were implying.
Response…That is not what you were thinking, until this very moment you have believed that God fathered Jesus with a human female you wrote… “Jesus is the Son of God by divine conception, but he is also the son of man by way of his human mother. This combination makes him a different type of being, but no less the biological Son of God….We see something like this in the animal kingdom. Certain species can be combined to form a new type of animalâ€.
Mark writes- But I believe that God gave him life, and brought him into existence, by His very Word. In that sense only do I believe that God “gave something of Himself,†but in that sense He gave something of Himself
Response…But even the life that Jesus received at his conception was not God’s life it was mortal life.
So back to square one, BU’s as all denominations do not actually believe that God fathered anyone.
Actually BU’s, Jews, and all other Christians believe that God is our Father and that we are all the children of God. It is the Muslims that believe that it is impossible for God to have children. Not us…
Thomas writes- Actually BU’s, Jews, and all other Christians believe that God is our Father and that we are all the children of God.
Response…No denomination believes that Jesus shares the same ontological category of being as his Father.
Michael
You said, “So back to square one, BU’s as all denominations do not actually believe that God fathered anyone.”
The truth is that BU’s and all denominations (except Muslims) believe that God has fathered everyone. As for your ramblings about ontological categories, I believe that is a subject best left for philosophers to discuss. Since there is nothing mentioned in the bible regarding this subject..
Mark writes- Luke 1:35 indicates he (Jesus) was ontologically God’s Son
Response…Is Mark also rambling about ontological categories?
It seems to me when anyone starts delving into subjects that are not mentioned in the bible then they are delving into philosophy. Since the subject of ontological categories is not discussed in the bible then the bible cannot be used to verify or deny your’s or Mark’s statements…
Thomas writes- The truth is that BU’s and all denominations believe that God has fathered everyone.
Response…How does God father anyone and everyone?
Thomas writes- Since the subject of ontological categories is not discussed in the bible then the bible cannot be used to verify or deny yours or Mark’s statements…
Response…But the bible does speak of fathers and their children and by nature they share the same ontological category of being with no explanation necessary. It is BU’s that use the words literal and biological when describing Jesus as the Son of God thus requiring an explanation.
Thomas writes- we are all the children of God
Response… But Jesus is the only Son of God not by adoption.
It’s been said that to beget means to sire, to father, to bring into existence, to procreate, and to generate.
Does this mean that to stay true to the word beget, that the existence of one who is begotten, must at all times strictly adhere to all of that of which the word beget concerns?
When I look up the word “exist” I see that some of it’s uses concerns specific manifestation or occurance , or manner of existing, or being.
So is it possible that Jesus could have existed prior to a particular being born of God? I think it’s entirely possible by staying close to the exact useages and meanings of the words involved.
Are there any words we find in the dictionary, that require all of the uses of the word to be used together at the same time, in order for the word to be truly used?
I’ve often found words in the dictionary that do not require all of it’s following definitions to apply all together at the same time in order for the use of the word to be true.
Michael
You said, “It is BU’s that use the words literal and biological when describing Jesus as the Son of God thus requiring an explanation.”
Correction. It is only some BU’s that use the words literal and biological when describing Jesus as the Son of God. As for your comment that our beliefs require an explanation, about a dozen people on this site have explained to you their own personal opinions concerning how they think God beget his son Yeshua/Jesus.
You must have noticed that we didn’t all believe the exact same thing. The reason for this is that the bible does not clearly explain in minute detail how God beget/created his son Yeshua/Jesus. Therefore it is open to opinion. You however just ignored all of our explanations implying they are not satisfactory. At the same time you refuse to explain to us, How ‘YOU THINK’ God beget Yeshua/Jesus???
To me this is unfair and cowardly on your behalf. Are you ashamed of your beliefs??? Are you afraid your beliefs won’t stand up under scrutiny??? I asked the following question of you once before and I still find myself wondering, “Do you even have any beliefs on this subject???”
Like I said in my message above, the question of whether Yeshua/Jesus is the ontological son of God or not, is more of a philosophical question then a biblical question. I personally don’t believe he is. But, we could speculate till the cows come home regarding this question and we would still be no closer to a conclusive answer…
Michael
From what i have put together about your belief is because Jesus lived sinlessly he received the seed sometime during his life to become the Son of God literally at his resurrection.
When was this seed formed in Jesus?
So what was he before that?
So what was he before his baptism?
Mark
Here is something i found that might help you understand that Jesus was adopted as his baptism and became the literal Son at his resurrection making Lukes birth narrative as an announcement of a future King of Israel ONLY
The Old Testament Background of Jesus as Begotten of God by H. Neil Richardson
…To say that Yeshua was begotten of Elohim is another way of saying that Yeshua is the Messiah.
In the Old Testament, the messiah was to be begotten of Elohim…. To understand Yeshua as begotten of Elohim, we must first understand the nature of this concept in the Old Testament and its relationship to the concept of the messiah.
The word “messiah” comes from the Hebrew verb masach, which means “to anoint.” Ancient Israelite kings were regarded as “the anointed of YHVH,” that is, as messiahs. In 1 Samuel 10:1 we read that “Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it on {Saul’s} head, kissed him, and said, ‘Has not YHVH anointed {masach} you prince over his people, Israel?'” Thus was Israel’s first king consecrated. In 1 Samuel 15:1, we read that “Samuel said to Saul, ‘YHVH sent me to anoint you king over his people, Israel.'”
On two occasions when David has an opportunity to kill King Saul, David refrains because Saul is Elohim’s “anointed.” In 1 Samuel 24:6 (in Hebrew, v. 7) David says to his men, “YHVH forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of YHVH, to raise my hand against him, for he is YHVH’;s anointed!” In verse 11, David says to Saul, “I have said, ‘I shall not raise my hand against my lord, for he is YHVH’s anointed.'” In 1 Samuel 26:11, David says, YHVH forbid that I should raise my hand against the anointed of YHVH.” Later, David upbraids Abner, the commander of Saul’s army, “As YHVH lives, you, who should have kept watch over your lord, the anointed of YHVH, are dead men!” (1 Samuel 26:16).
David himself was anointed by Samuel when he ascended to the throne (1 Samuel 16:13). So was Solomon – not by Samuel, but by Zadok. In 1 Kings 1:38-40, we find the account of Zadok’s anointing of Solomon, “There Zadok, the priest, took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon” (v. 39). While priests and objects might be anointed, “anointing was first of all a royal rite…. The king was ‘the anointed one’ or ‘messiah’ of YHVH.” (note 1)
Psalm 2, one of the most moving of the so-called royal psalms, was apparently composed to be recited on the occasion of the enthronement of the king in the cultic enthronement ceremony. According to one scholar, “It was composed for the occasion of the enthronement of a king of Judah at Jerusalem in the time after David.” (note 2) The psalm may have been recited by the king himself. Or perhaps different parts were declaimed by different speakers: the poet, the priest and the king. the psalm identifies the king as the anointed, that is, the messiah of YHVH: “The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers conspire together against YHVH and his anointed” (Psalm 2:2).
Verse 7 is of special importance. Here undoubtedly are words recited by the king himself as he is invested with royal powers: “I will proclaim the decree of YHVH; He said to me, ‘Your are my son; today I have begotten you.'” with his anointment as king, he becomes begotten of Elohim. This is a formula of adoption by which the king became Elohim’s son.
This idea of the sonship of the king is also reflected in a passage from 2 Samuel. In a vision or dream, YHVH Himself appears to the prophet Nathan; YHVH tells the prophet to inform David that David’s offspring, rather than David himself, will build the temple of YHVH; as to that offspring, YHVH says, “I will be his Father and he will be My son” (2 Samuel 7:14).
Psalm 89 seems to refer specifically to this passage from 2 Samuel: “Once {referring to the passage from 2 Samuel} you spoke in a vision… saying ‘…I have anointed {David}. My hand will sustain him; surely my arm will strengthen him…. He will call unto me, “You are my Father, my El and the Rock of my salvation.” And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth'” (Psalm 89:20-22, 26-27).
Thus we see that in ancient Israel and Judah, kings were viewed as having a special Father-son relationship with God, a relationship emphasized in Psalm 2:7, “Today I have begotten you,” and in Psalm 89, “the firstborn.”
This has nothing to do with physical descent, however, or the divine kingship as in Egypt. What we find in the Hebrew Bible is adoption language, qualifying the king for the patrimony YHVH wishes to bestow upon him. (note 3)
How this concept persisted is reflected in one of the dead Sea Scrolls from the first century B.C., a manuscript that was probably once a part of the so-called Manual of Discipline (note 4) (which was a manual for the restored congregation of Israel). It sets forth the rules for participation in the future community. Among other things, it describes a meal of bread and wine at which the messiah will be present. It refers to a time “when YHVH will beget the messiah”. (note 5) The passage is difficult to read because discoloration of the leather has obscured some letters. However, infrared photography has verified the correctness of “will beget.” The word for YHVH has been restored, but in the light of all we have noted above – and especially Psalm 2:7 – this is a highly probable reading. (note 6) Thus the Essene community of the first century B.C. clearly affirmed that the messiah will be begotten of Elohim….
In the texts from the Hebrew Bible, the king becomes the son of Elohim when he is anointed. Recall that to be the messiah means to be anointed…. Some New Testament scholars have attempted to trace a development in the tradition regarding the time when Yeshua became begotten of Elohim. In the earliest stage of the tradition, Yeshua was begotten of Elohim only at the time of the resurrection; later, the time when Yeshua became begotten of Elohim was pushed back to his baptism; finally, in the canonical version of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, it was pushed back to the moment of conception.
In support of this contention, an ancient manuscript of Luke is cited. this manuscript differs from the canonical version of Luke. In the canonical version of Luke, we read that when Yeshua was baptized a voice announced from heaven: “Thou art my beloved Son. With thee I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22). In a fifth- sixth-century manuscript known as the Codex Bezae,* the voice from heaven announces, “Today I have begotten you,” instead of “With thee I am well pleased.”
The reading in Codex Bezae was preferred by some early Church fathers, such as Methodius of Olympus, Hilary of Poitiers and Augustine of Hippo. According to this version, Yeshua became God’s begotten son only at his baptism, a clear contradiction of the view in the Lukan infancy narrative that it was at the time of conception that Yeshua became the begotten messiah. consequently, the reading in Luke 3:22 was changed!
In other contexts, the Christological language of “begotten son” appears only at the resurrection. In the Book of Acts, we read that Paul tells his listeners “Elohim raised {Yeshua} from the dead…. We bring you the good news that what Elohim promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Yeshua; as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you'” (Acts 13:30, 32-33). In this way, Paul makes the language of Psalm 2:7 applicable to the resurrection.
In this same vein, in Paul’s letter to the Romans we are told that Yeshua was “born of the seed of David according to the flesh {but} designated son of Elohim in power according to the Holy Spirit from the time of his resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:3-4).
This passage from Romans and the passage from Acts clearly reflect an early Christological belief that Yeshua was the begotten Messiah, the Son of Elohim, from the time of his resurrection. According to most critical scholars, Romans and Acts represent the earliest expression of the Christological concept of the time of the Messiah’s begottenness. In this earliest expression, the Messiah was begotten of Elohim at the time of the resurrection. Later, the moment was pushed back to the time of Yeshua’s baptism experience – as reflected in the Codex Bezae. Finally, in the canonical versions of Matthew and Luke the moment was pushed back to the time of conception/birth.
The concept of the Messiah as begotten of Elohim is clearly derived from the Hebrew bible. This concept beings in the time of Saul and David, continues through the Qumran literature, and into the thought of early Christians as evidenced in the New testament. In the development of Christological doctrine, the time when Messiah was begotten changed, but what remains constant throughout is that the Messiah, is begotten of Elohim, and therefore is the Son of Elohim {the Father), and the inheritor of Elohim’s patrimony.
* Codex Bezae is a Western text type extant in Old Latin and Old Syriac translations and in quotations from such second- and third-century authors as Marcion, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Cyprian. Cf. Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: fortress, 1982), pp. 17-18, 25-26.
The beginning of the Lord’s generation begins with Abraham not because he had no beginning before then, but because his beginning according to the flesh began with God’s promise to Abraham.
This is not to say that Jesus had no prior beginnings, for there was a promise given long before Abraham received it by faith. There was a promise given to Adam and Eve about Jesus, the one who would be someone other than the seed of the serpent and would triumph over him.
Never the less, starting to give the generation of the Lord starting with Abraham is appropriate. It certainly is not given that way to say that that he in no way existed prior to that time. That’s not the point of the writer, nor is it the point of the scriptures to say such a thing.
Such an idea as Anthony’s, of Jesus not existing prior to either his conception or birth, in or of Mary, is outside of scripture.
We should all learn to not go outside of scripture when declaring some kind of doctrine. Such a doctrine does not glorify him as he ought to be glorified and will be glorified by the church.
I trust that it will become more and more obvious to us when a man presumes above that which is written.
Ray,
While the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel begins with Abraham, the genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam, plus his “goings forth have been from of old” (Micah 5:2). But genealogy is not existence. The plan and promise of his coming were from the foundation of the world, as was our calling in him (Eph. 1:4). But he did not come into existence before his begetting and birth. That is why Matthew speaks of the beginning or genesis of Jesus Christ. It is certainly not outside of Scripture, when the records are so simple and unambiguous.
As for the meaning of “exist,” I’d like to know what dictionary you were looking at that gave part of its meaning as concerning “specific manifestation or occurrence.” Could you provide the source and exact quotes you refer to?
Robert,
The article you posted refers at great length to the meaning and significance of the title, “Son of God.” There is no question there. But I believe the Scriptures reveal that Jesus was not only the Son of God in the prophetic sense (i.e., the Messiah, anointed to be king, etc.) but also literally begotten by God, as declared in Matthew and Luke.
The fact that a variant reading in one Greek MS and a few Latin MSS includes the phrase “this day have I begotten you” cannot be taken as proof, if virtually all other MSS support the traditional reading. Especially when that reading fits with the simple, straightforward reading of both Matthew and Luke, which make it clear that God begot Jesus in Mary before she and Joseph came together. Nothing is said about using Joseph’s sperm, and none of the references to people referring to Joseph as his father in any way indicate that he was.
We’ve been through all of this before. The best argument you’ve presented against the birth narrative in Matthew is that the text was corrupted. But while there are instances of textual corruption regarding various passages, there is no evidence of either birth record (Matthew or Luke) ever having a substantially different reading that was later corrupted.
Mark writes- But I believe the Scriptures reveal that Jesus was not only the Son of God in the prophetic sense (i.e., the Messiah, anointed to be king, etc.) but also literally begotten by God, as declared in Matthew and Luke.
Response…Can we be literally begotten by God?
No, WE can’t. But Jesus was.
“The article you posted refers at great length to the meaning and significance of the title, “Son of God.†There is no question there. But I believe the Scriptures reveal that Jesus was not only the Son of God in the prophetic sense (i.e., the Messiah, anointed to be king, etc.) but also literally begotten by God, as declared in Matthew and Luke.”
Mark
Actually it pertains to how God Adopts humans when he annoints them which in the original reading of Luke Jesus was Adopted at his baptism and in Romans1 and Acts Pauls states that Jesus didnt literally become Gods son till his resurrection..
This shows the context of Lukes narrative must of had a different meaning.
“But while there are instances of textual corruption regarding various passages, there is no evidence of either birth record (Matthew or Luke) ever having a substantially different reading that was later corrupted.”
Mark
Actually there is loads of evidence that Matthews didnt even exist and with the corruption in Luke 3:22 the question is just how much did the trinitarian church alter Lukes narrative but even as it reads it does not support God literally fathering Jesus so there is no reason worry about it
Mark, let’s remember that the word of God is existence, that it is real, that a promise given about sending his Son long before he came in the flesh, existed long before his being conceived in the flesh. As Jesus is the word of God, those promises are a part of him, and that being so, there is a sense in which one who has received that much may say that he does believe in the preexistence of Christ in some sense of the word, though it might not be at this time to the extent that others have received, such as those who believe he was a person or being at the time the promises were given, long before his conception in the flesh which we read about in the gospel of Luke.
Which carries more weight with you, the promises of God concerning Christ, or his geneology that your read about in Matthew?
You contradict yourself in the eyes of many for you say that his goings forth have been of old, even from everlasting, (Micah 5:2) and then you say that he didn’t exist until his begetting and birth.
If you have received Micah 5:2, how is it that you glory as if you have not received it? (I Cor 4:7)
“Can we be literally begotten by God” Mark answers emphatically-No, WE can’t. But Jesus was.
Response…If we cannot be literally born of God then we must be born of God figuratively, correct?
Robert,
As I said, one variant reading in a handful of MSS doesn’t prove that the original read that way. And most scholars disagree with that interpretation of Paul.
Ray,
As I said, the plan and promise of his coming were from the foundation of the world, as was our calling in him (Eph. 1:4). But he did not come into existence before his begetting and birth. That is why Matthew speaks of the beginning or genesis of Jesus Christ. There is no contradiction.
Michael,
I prefer the word “spiritually.” The new birth refers to the seed of His Word being implanted in us. But we are still “literally” the children of our mother and father. Jesus was the child of God and of Mary.
“As I said, one variant reading in a handful of MSS doesn’t prove that the original read that way.”
Mark
Its not only the handful of MSS that read that way,its the early references to that reading by the church fathers before the canonical luke was every referenced.
But you can believe what you want even if its a trinitarians forced reading
“And most scholars disagree with that interpretation of Paul.”
Mark
Yep most of them are trinitarians
Could you provide the quotations/references for this the way you did with Matt. 19:17 in your comments to Marc in the other thread? I’d be interested in seeing those.
Mark
besides the codex D ,codex E and several Latin Mss,
Justin Martyr quoted Luke 3:22 as “this day have I begotten Thee” (Dialogues with Trypho 88.8 and 103.8)
which shows this reading very early
Clement, Origen, and even Augustine which you can read yourself if you want to know how they quoted it.
Also turn to RSV footnotes for this verification
Robert,
Thanks. Do you have the references for Clement, Origen, and Augustine? They wrote a lot of stuff!
Mark
No i just read and dont ever take notes. Going back through everything i have read to provide you indexes would not be profitable to you compared to you reading it yourself.
But i gave you one of the earliest church fathers who quoted it this way which should be enough to prove the early witness i needed.
Your point was that there are many witnesses. One person using the phrase twice is hardly enough to stand against nearly unanimous MS evidence. But I’ll see if I can find their quotes. Thanks.
“Your point was that there are many witnesses. One person using the phrase twice is hardly enough to stand against nearly unanimous MS evidence.”
Mark
As I pointed out to Marc the MSS that support your view are just copies of copies making your evidence for your reading ONE.
Can you provide me with ONE reading that predates the witness I provided. I dont think your going to get any closer than 2 centuries later when any other reading than who was in power was considered heritical and was kept in secret because there was a death sentence to those in possession.If it wasnt for this there might be 50 thousand MSS that support the late 1st and early 2nd century reading.
Actually, that’s not how NT text history and development work. This site gives a good overview:
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/TextHistory.htm
Mark
Lets say that we found the autograph of Luke and it match your reading then from that source we would know the rest were just copies making them only one witness but we dont have your reading till later,actually much later.
now on the other hand we have an early reference,actually very early that provides evidence for my reading because it had to come from a recent copy of luke or possibly the autograph and there are other references that predate other reading but even with those we can only count it as one witness because it must of came from same source.
so your claim that more MSS support your reading is flawed and we our equal in witnesses but my reading was there first therefore can not be a corruption of the other.
Only one can match the autograph if any do.
So I dont care to have someone explain to me how the source of one witness out weighs the other because it was copied over and over again when that is outweighed by an earlier source by centuries.
You can aproach it that way but i cant
Mark
all the references are mentioned in this book
http://books.google.com/books?id=MlPrYQ5srKEC&lpg=PP1&dq=did%20calvin%20murder%20servetus&pg=PA528#v=onepage&q&f=true
Robert,
Thanks for that link. I’ll check it out. A couple of other points…
If all MSS were just copies of copies back to the one original, we would not have as many variant readings as we do. The fact is, many copies were made at the same time by various scribes in various locations. The changes that were made (whether accidentally or on purpose) can frequently be traced, and thus there are “families” of MSS, and often certain strains that began with a group of MSS and then found their way into others. The article I linked to explains it quite well. I recommend you read it.
The other thing is, the various references in the writings of Church Fathers do not conclusively prove that they had access to a MS with a different reading than what exists today. In some cases it could be, but the Church Fathers often used wording from various parts of Scripture in one sentence to illustrate their point, not intending it to be a direct quote. The Patristic references to Matthew 28:29 and I John 5:7-8 come to mind. (You can read about them here and here.)
In any case, there are still other issues to be considered, in order to determine what was the correct reading, and especially, what was the correct doctrine to be gleaned from the Scriptures. Since the discussion is about Jesus’ begetting, especially in the records of Matthew and Luke, we need to consider those records carefully, since they most clearly describe how God begot Jesus in Mary’s womb.
“If all MSS were just copies of copies back to the one original, we would not have as many variant readings as we do.”
Mark
Scribes were human and made mistakes and also were driven by their beliefs. This accounts for different variants of copies and doesnt change the fact they came from one source around the 4th century making them still only one witness not 5K.
The witnesses provided for the earlier reading are too numerous and way to clear to ignore if it is the truth you seek.
Plus its way to clear from the same witnesses that Matthews gospel didnt have a birth narrative and the context of Lukes narrative is about the announcement of a future King and never speaks of Jesus as already being the Son of God ,Just HE SHALL BE CALLED IT!!! which we find happens for the first time at his baptism
Could you be more specific? What hard evidence is there that Matthew’s Gospel didn’t have a birth narrative?
Mark
Here is enough to prove the ebionites who were the first christian followers of the 1st century used the gospel of Matthew that was lacking 300 lines at the beginning which must of been added later. Plus there is without a doubt evidence that Matthew was writen in hebrew BY MATTHEW and was translated by to greek the best they could. Papias is thoroughly unaware of a different gospel that Matthew could of wrote.
If you read all the quotes by the early church fathers you will find that the canonical Matthew was just a dehebrewized copy of the hebrew and the later church fathers of the 4th century added a witness to THEIR READING OF LUKE’S birth narrative.
But all this has been shown to you before
From Wikipedia
“the Ebionites are said to have accepted only a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of the Gospel of Matthew, referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews, as additional scripture to the Hebrew Bible. This version of Matthew, Irenaeus reports, omitted the first two chapters (on the nativity of Jesus), and started with the baptism of Jesus by John”
It is significant to note that Nicephorus, when drawing up his list of canonical and apocryphal books, stated that the Gospel of the Hebrews contained only 2200 lines, 300 fewer than Matthew. It has been suggested that these three hundred lines are the birth narratives of the first and second chapters of our canonical Matthew.
Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
“Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.”
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.”
Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.”
Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6
“Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent.”
Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called “According to the Hebrews” by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels.
Jerome also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5), and he refers to a Hebrew Matthew and a Gospel of the Hebrews-unclear if they are the same. He also quotes from the Gospel used by the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, which he says he has recently translated from Hebrew to Greek (in Matth. 12.13).
The Holy Bible clearly reports though, that Our LORD JESUS CHRIST Said :
” Before Abraham was, I AM ! ”
This means so clearly that, LORD JESUS CHRIST Is The True Incarnation Of LORD GOD SON, therefore, LORD JESUS CHRIST IS Yud Hey Vav Hey (Meaning, ” Behold ! The Hand ! Behold ! The nail ! “, and This from the ancient jewish alphabet and its directly related idiographies, therefore, idiographies existant for each and every letter, Which Are again, Yud, Hey, Vav, Hey), and Yud Hey Vav Hey, From Which Most Holy Name derive directly The Initials for each and every above ancient hebrew Letter, that are, Y H V H, called The Holy Tetragrammaton, from which again derives The Holiest Name, YAHVEH !
Lets truly wake up To The Truth !!! Once and Forever ! Amen ! Glory To LORD GOD CREATOR ! Alleluia ! Thank You Oh LORD JESUS CHRIST !
Also, in The Gospel of John It Is Reported that, LORD JESUS CHRIST
IS THE WORD, AND HE IS WITH LORD GOD, AND HE IS LORD GOD ! The Word Of GOD Is GOD Because LORD GOD IS THE CREATIVE WORD, WHO CREATES WITH HIS WORD, THE WORD WHICH COMES OUT OF HIS HOLY MOUTH ! “Lazzarus ! Come Out ! And He came out alive ! Let IT Be Light ! And LIGHT broke the darkness ! Etc., Etc. ; Amen !
And The LIGHT Of LORD GOD IS LORD JESUS CHRIST, and The SPIRIT Of LORD GOD IS LORD GOD because in The Holy Bible It Is written that, The SPIRIT Of LORD GOD Knows everything about LORD GOD !
In The Gospel Of John It Is written : In Heaven THERE ARE Three WITNESSES, and THEY ARE The FATHER, The SON, and The Holy PARACLETE, and THEY ARE (Plural) One (Singular) !
Glory To LORD GOD ! Alleluia !
Thank you for the opportunity to writing herein within,
regards, Peter