The Only Begotten Son

( )
My purpose here is to discuss the meaning of the word (monogenes) as
used in the New Testament the !eptuagint and in other ancient writings" # am
especia$$y interested in its use %y the &post$e 'ohn in his (ospe$ and in his first
)pist$e and its use in the Nicene *reed of &"+" ,-." # wi$$ argue that the rendering
/one and on$y/ is semantica$$y reductionistic and theo$ogica$$y inade0uate"
The (ree1 word is an ad2ecti3e compounded of /on$y/ and
/species race fami$y offspring 1ind"/ #n usage with few e4ceptions it refers to an
on$y son or daughter" 5hen used in reference to a son it cannot mean /one of a 1ind/
%ecause the parent is a$so of the same 1ind" The meaning is the son is the on$y
offspring of the parent not the on$y e4isting person of his kind" &nd so in the (ree1
trans$ation of the %oo1 of To%it when 6ague$ praises (od for ha3ing mercy on 78
9 (:;<=) he does not mean that his daughter !ara and To%ias were two
/uni0ue/ persons> he means that they were %oth on$y?%egotten chi$dren of their
fathers" #n @u1eAs (ospe$ the word is used in reference to an on$y chi$d in =;<- :;B-
and C;,:" #n the )pist$e to the De%rews it is said that when &%raham was ready to
sacrifice #saac he was offering up E /his on$y?%egotten/ (<<;<=) %ecause
a$though &%raham had another son (od had said that on$y in #saac sha$$ &%rahamAs
seed (FGHI) %e named" (JFE9 GHFK LHI E FIM G9HIN
MI E GHFOH E GIPI I7Q GH PIPRS
E9 FIM MPSRFEI F9 FGHI)"
(<)
5hen the word is used in
reference to a son or daughter it a$ways means /on$y?%egotten"/
There are a few p$aces where the word has %een understood to mean /one of a 1ind/
or /incompara%$e"/ Tor instance in his artic$e /The Une and Un$y !on/ 6ichard
@ongenec1er ca$$s attention to an occurrence in one ear$y *hristian source an epist$e
written %y *$ement of 6ome;
5riting a%out the same time as the fourth e3ange$ist (i"e" &"+" C.?CV) *$ement of
6ome (1 Clement -.) spo1e of the Whoeni4 that mysterious %ird of the )ast as
monogenesXthat is as /uni0ue/ or /the on$y one of its 1ind/;
@et us consider the mar3e$ous sign which is seen in the regions of the east that is in
the regions a%out &ra%ia" There is a %ird which is named the Whoeni4" This %eing the
on$y one of its 1ind (touto monogenes hyparchon) $i3es for .YY years> and when it
reaches the time of its disso$ution that it shou$d die it ma1es for itse$f a coffin of
fran1incense and myrrh and other spices into which in the fu$ness of time it enters
and then dies" Zut as the f$esh rots a certain worm is engendered which is nurtured
from the moisture of the dead creature and puts forth wings" Then when it has grown
$usty it ta1es up that coffin where are the %ones of its parent and carrying them it
2ourneys from the country of &ra%ia e3en unto )gypt to the p$ace ca$$ed the *ity of
the !unXand in fu$$ day$ight and in the sight of a$$ it f$ies to the a$tar of the !un and
$ays them on it" &nd this done it then returns" !o the priests e4amine the registers of
the times and they find that it has come when the fi3e hundredth year is comp$eted"
(-)
The pro%$em here is that @ongenec1er does not gi3e us any reason to thin1 that the
semantic component /%egotten/ is a%sent" #n this conte4t we e3en see the author
dwe$$ing upon the strange manner in which the Whoeni4 engenders its one offspring"
5hy shou$d we thin1 that there is no idea of /%egetting/ in the word monogenes in
this conte4t[ 5e a$so note that in the immediate$y preceding paragraph (which
@ongenec1er does not 0uote) the author is comparing the resurrection of the dead to
the regeneration of a p$ant through its seed;
@et us consider %e$o3ed how the @ord continua$$y pro3es to us that there sha$$ %e a
future resurrection of which De has rendered the @ord 'esus *hrist the first?fruits %y
raising Dim from the dead" @et us contemp$ate %e$o3ed the resurrection which is at
a$$ times ta1ing p$ace" +ay and night dec$are to us a resurrection" The night sin1s to
s$eep and the day arises> the day \again] departs and the night comes on" @et us
%eho$d the fruits \of the earth] how the sowing of grain ta1es p$ace" The sower goes
forth and casts it into the ground> and the seed %eing thus scattered though dry and
na1ed when it fe$$ upon the earth is gradua$$y disso$3ed" Then out of its disso$ution
the mighty power of the pro3idence of the @ord raises it up again and from one seed
many arise and %ring forth fruit"
(,)
Dere we may see a reason why the word monogenes is used in connection with the
Whoeni4; in contrast with the numerous offspring of the p$ants (/from one seed many
arise/) the Whoeni4 is the on$y offspring (monogenes) of its parent" #t is pro%a%$y right
to emphasi^e the mono /on$y/ here as @ongenec1er does %ut there is no good reason
to say that the genes must mean /1ind/ without any connotation of /%egotten"/
@ongenec1er a$so argues that the !eptuagintAs usage of for the De%rew _`a bc`
(yachid /on$y/) in some of the Wsa$ms indicates /more genera$ meanings for the term
as we$$ depending on the conte4t"/ De maintains that /in Wsa$ms -.;<V and V:;V
(@dd) the idea of Athe on$y oneA is nuanced to mean Adeso$ateA or Aso$itaryA or Aa$$
a$oneA """/ (p" <-<)" Zut his reference to Wsa$m V:;V here is a mista1e %ecause the
word used in the !eptuagint trans$ation of Wsa$m V:;V is EHG (/$i3ing a$one
so$itary/) not "
(B)
*oncerning Wsa$m -.;<V (where the word does occur)
we might as1 why is used %y the trans$ator if he wanted to con3ey the
sense /a$one/ %ecause in (ree1 the ordinary word for /a$one/ is (and that is the
word we find in the 3ersion of !ymmachus at this point)" !o why does
appear here instead[ #t seems un$i1e$y that the !eptuagint trans$ator wou$d ha3e
reached for this unusua$ word to con3ey the meaning /a$one/ when he cou$d ha3e
done that more idiomatica$$y with the word " #t may %e that he ha%itua$$y
associated the De%rew ad2ecti3e yahid with on$y chi$dren (in = of the << occurrences
of this word in the De%rew Zi%$e it refers to on$y chi$dren) and so he assumed that
the word meant /on$y %egotten"/ #n any case the !eptuagint trans$ators often used
stereotyped renderings in which (ree1 words are used mechanica$$y without
attention to the conte4t or the semantic nuances of the De%rew words"
(.)
Dence the
use of here" 5e cannot a$ways determine the meaning of (ree1 words in
the !eptuagint %y e0uating them with the meaning of the origina$ De%rew words
%ecause the trans$ator may not ha3e understood the De%rew the way we understand it"
@ongenec1er then goes on to suggest that the word means /price$ess and
irrep$acea%$e/ in Wsa$ms --;-Y and ,.;<=" Dere again he is trying to esta%$ish the
meaning of the (ree1 word %y associating it with the conte4tua$ nuances of a De%rew
word" This method is unsound" The meanings of the De%rew words cannot %e poured
into the (ree1 words $i1e this" The (ree1 words ha3e their own meanings and they
often represent an interpretation which is at 3ariance with the true meaning of the
De%rew"
(V)
6hetorica$$y the strongest point in @ongenec1erAs argument comes when he 0uotes a
statement found in a phi$osophica$ poem written %y Warmenides (fifth century Z"*");
/The si4th?fifth century Z"*" phi$osopher Warmenides spo1e of Zeing as /ungenerated
\ageneton] imperisha%$e who$e uni0ue \monogenes] and without end/ (Trag" :",?B)
there%y ignoringXparticu$ar$y in para$$e$ with agenetonXany idea of generation in
the word as might %e found etymo$ogica$$y in genos"/ (p" <-<") U%3ious$y in this
conte4t the word 8 (the o$d #onic form of ) cou$d not ha3e %een
meant to carry the imp$ication that /Zeing/ is /%egotten"/ Zut its meaning is not c$ear"
The )ng$ish word /uni0ue/ has %een used in recent trans$ations of the poem %ut this
does not ma1e sense in the conte4t either" !ome scho$ars ha3e suggested that
Warmenides is using 8 in the sense /of one 1ind/ or /homogeneous/ i"e" not
compounded of different e$ements" Uthers ha3e despaired of ma1ing sense of it here
and ha3e thought that it was not present in the origina$ te4t" 'ohn Zurnet argued that
the word 8 o%tained its p$ace in the te4t when someone tried to interpret the
origina$ wording of the te4t a$ong the $ines of W$atoAs statements a%out the cosmos in
his Timaeus" De e$iminates it %y emending the te4t to read e ISE MI9
IePRH FE9 FE9 IH 8PP E MI9 IEH S7A IEPFE which he
trans$ates /what is is uncreated and indestructi%$e> for it is comp$ete immo3a%$e and
without end"/
(=)
#n any case this pro%$ematic te4t from the c$assica$ era cannot %e
used to esta%$ish the usua$ meaning of in the $ater Koine (ree1 in which
'ohnAs (ospe$ is written"
&nother p$ace where is said to mean on$y /uni0ue/ or /incompara%$e/ is in
the Wisdom of Solomon a 'ewish %oo1 written pro%a%$y in &$e4andria a%out <YY Z"*"
#n it we find a hymn to (odAs /5isdom/ in which it is said that /there is in her a spirit
0uic1 of understanding ho$y manifo$d/ and so forth (=;--)" Zut e3en here
it seems that the sense /on$y?%egotten/ is not un$i1e$y %ecause 5isdom in this %oo1 is
personified" !he is ca$$ed /the artificer of a$$ things/ (=;--) /a$$?powerfu$ a$$?
sur3eying/ (=;-,) /the %reath of the power of (od/ an /eff$uence/ of Dis g$ory
(=;-.) an /effu$gence from e3er$asting $ight an unspotted mirror of the wor1ing of
(od and an image of his goodness/ (=;-V) and so on" !he /proc$aimeth her no%$e
%irth (89I) in that it is gi3en to her to $i3e with (F8L9eF9) (od/ (:;,)"
(:)
#n the
midst of such $anguage in which the author spea1s of the no%$e %irth of a personified
5isdom $i3ing with and emanating from (od we can hard$y refuse to ta1e
as a %io$ogica$ metaphor" *$ear$y this praise of 5isdom is inspired %y Wro3er%s :;--
ff" in which (od %rings forth (!eptuagint I /%egets/) 5isdom /from e3er$asting
from the %eginning"/
#n 'ohnAs (ospe$ and Tirst )pist$e the same words and concepts are used to descri%e
the specia$ re$ationship of 'esus to (od" The word is used as an ad2ecti3e
modifying /!on/ and once as a su%stanti3e" De uses the word in fi3e p$aces" # gi3e
the $itera$ trans$ation from the )ng$ish 6e3ised fersion of <::< with the
corresponding (ree1 te4t;
)ng$ish 6e3ised fersion !outerAs (ree1 Te4t
'ohn <;<B" &nd the 5ord %ecame f$esh
and dwe$t among us (and we %ehe$d his
g$ory g$ory as of the on$y %egotten
from the Tather) fu$$ of grace and
truth"
gI P FHQ E MI FMeF
(MI RIFRI E 7QI IE
7QI GIH GIEH) GPHS
KH9E MI PSRI"
'ohn <;<:" No man hath seen (od at
any time> the on$y %egotten !on which
is in the %osom of the Tather he hath
dec$ared him"
h 7 HIM GGEi
8 E MPG E GIEH
M QSFIE" (!ome manuscripts read
R /the on$y?%egotten (od/ here
instead of 8")
'ohn ,;<V" Tor (od so $o3ed the wor$d
that he ga3e his on$y %egotten !on that
whosoe3er %e$ie3eth on him shou$d not
perish %ut ha3e eterna$ $ife"
jEe H GSF R E MF
FE E 8 IE E !7eM
"I G# G9FE$e IE GPSEI9
PP% !K& Ne I9"
'ohn ,;<:" De that %e$ie3eth on him is
not 2udged; he that %e$ie3eth not hath
%een 2udged a$ready %ecause he hath
not %e$ie3ed on the name of the on$y
%egotten !on of (od"
G9FE$e IE MHEI9i 7'
G9FE$e (7S MMH9EI9 E9 GGFE8M
E )I E 8 E R"
< 'ohn B;C" Derein was the $o3e of (od
manifested in us that (od hath sent his
on$y %egotten !on into the wor$d that
we might $i3e through him"
E$E* OIHRS GS E R
E9 E 8 IE E
GFEIPM R E MF "I
NFe 79% IE"
#n four of the fi3e p$aces the word is used as an ad2ecti3e modifying /!on/ and in one
of these (<;<:) the !on is said to %e /in the %osom of the Tather"/ #n the one p$ace
where it occurs as a su%stanti3e (<;<B) it is fo$$owed %y the prepositiona$ phrase
/from the Tather/ which imp$ies sonship" &nd so we see that in e3ery occurrence
'ohn is using the word as a %io$ogica$ metaphor in which *hrist is the /Un$y Zegotten
!on/ of the Tather"
#s there any doctrina$ importance in this[ kes there is" The %io$ogica$ metaphor in
which the !on (and on$y the !on) shares the genus of the Tather con3eys the idea that
'esus *hrist is a true genetic !on ha3ing the same di3ine nature or essence as the
Tather" The meaning of the word here is not 2ust /on$y/ or /one and on$y/
as in the 6!f N#f and )!f trans$ations" 'ohn is not saying that the !on is /one of a
1ind"/ De is saying that *hrist is the second of a 1ind uni0ue$y sharing the genus of
the Tather %ecause he is the on$y begotten !on of the Tather as in the l'f )6f and
N&!Z" #n the ear$y centuries of *hristianity this point of e4egesis ac0uired great
importance" +uring the fourth century a teaching 1nown as the &rian heresy (which
maintained that the !on was a created %eing) threatened the *hurch and in response
to it the orthodo4 Tathers emphasi^ed that the !cripture spea1s of a begetting of the
!on not a creation" Un that !criptura$ %asis they maintained that the !on must %e
understood to %e of the same essence as the Tather ($F9 E+ GIEH)" They
further e4p$ained that when !cripture spea1s of this /%egetting/ it refers to something
ta1ing p$ace in eternity not within time and so there were ne3er a time when the
Tather was without the !on" The orthodo4 teaching on this su%2ect was set forth in the
*reed adopted %y the *ounci$ of Nicma in &"+" ,-.;
J9FE8 9 I R GIEHI
GIEMHIEHI GIEe HIEe E MI9
IHIEe G9SES" gI9 9 I M8H9 nSF8
oH9FE E 89 E8 R8 REI M E8
GIEH S E8EFE9 M ES 8F9I
E8 GIEH R M R8 Oe M OeE
R IPSR9 M R8 IPSR98
SREI 8 G9SREI 8F9 Ee
GIEH9 79 8 EI GIEI E EI E Ee
8HIe MI9 EI G9 ES Si E 79 SI E8
IRHeG8 MI9 79I ES SEHI FeESH9I
MIEPREI MI9 FIHMeREI MI9
IRHeGSFIEI GIREI MI9 IIFEIEI
ES EH9ES SHI IPREI 9 E8
8HI8 MI9 HK MH9I9 NeEI MI9
MH8" gI9 9 E I9 G8I" p8 7
PEI E9 S GE E 8M S MI9 GH9
SRSI9 8M S MI9 E9 Q 8M Ee
E S Q EHI 8GFEIFe S 8F9I
OIFMEI 9I9 \S ME9FE] EHGE S
IPP9eE E 89 E8 R8 \E8E8]
IIRIE9N9 S MIRP9MS \MI9 IGFEP9MS]
MMPSF9I"
5e %e$ie3e in one (od the Tather
&$mighty Ma1er of a$$ things 3isi%$e
and in3isi%$e" &nd in one @ord 'esus
*hrist the !on of (od %egotten of the
Tather the on$y %egotten> that is of the
essence of the Tather (od of (od @ight
of @ight 3ery (od of 3ery (od
%egotten not made of one su%stance
($F9) with the Tather> %y whom
a$$ things were made %oth in hea3en and
on earth> who for us men and for our
sa$3ation came down and was incarnate
and was made man> he suffered and the
third day he rose again ascended into
hea3en> from thence he sha$$ come to
2udge the 0uic1 and the dead" &nd in the
Do$y (host" Zut those who say; AThere
was once when he was not>A and ADe was
not %efore he was made>A and ADe was
made out of nothingA or ADe is of
another su%stanceA or AessenceA or AThe
!on of (od is createdA or Achangea%$eA
or Aa$tera%$eAXthey are condemned %y
the ho$y catho$ic and aposto$ic *hurch"
(C)
&thanasius in his +efence of the Nicene +efinition (ca" ,.,) points to the word
in 'ohn <;<B as one !criptura$ proof for the teaching"
#t has %een shown a%o3e and must %e %e$ie3ed as true that the 5ord is from the
Tather and the on$y Uffspring proper to Dim and natura$" Tor whence may one
concei3e the !on to %e who is the 5isdom and the 5ord in whom a$$ things came to
%e %ut from (od Dimse$f[ Dowe3er the !criptures a$so teach us this"""" 'ohn in
saying /The Un$y?%egotten !on which is in the %osom of the Tather De hath dec$ared
Dim/ spo1e of what De had $earned from the !a3iour" Zesides what e$se does /in the
%osom/ intimate %ut the !onAs genuine generation from the Tather[
(<Y)
The Nicene *reed was re3ised at the *ounci$ of *onstantinop$e in &"+" ,:< and in
this re3ised form (1nown as the Niceno?*onstantinopo$itan *reed) it continues to %e
used %y the (ree1 Urthodo4 *hurch the 6oman *atho$ic *hurch and %y some
Wrotestant churches as a confession of faith" Most @utherans recite this *reed during
their worship ser3ices at $east once a month" )3en those who do not use this *reed in
their $iturgies genera$$y ac1now$edge the correctness of its teaching" Most Wrotestant
confessions and summaries of doctrine ha3e incorporated its $anguage" Tor instance
the 5estminster *onfession (used as a doctrina$ standard in conser3ati3e Wres%yterian
churches) ref$ects the Nicene teaching of the eterna$ generation of the !on in one of
its paragraphs concerning the Trinity; /#n the unity of the (odhead there %e three
persons of one su%stance power and eternity; (od the Tather (od the !on and (od
the Do$y (host; the Tather is of none neither %egotten nor proceeding> the !on is
eterna$$y %egotten of the Tather> the Do$y (host eterna$$y proceeding from the Tather
and the !on"/ (chapter - paragraph ,") #n this confession a !cripture reference
fo$$owing the words /eterna$$y %egotten of the Tather/ points to 'ohn <;<B and <;<:
as support for the doctrine"
#f the word /%egotten/ as app$ied to *hrist has had such importance in the history of
*hristian doctrine why ha3e some modern 3ersions of the Zi%$e omitted the
/%egotten/ in their renderings of the 3erses 0uoted a%o3e[
#t is %ecause many modern scho$ars ha3e re2ected the interpretation of !cripture
em%odied in the Nicene *reed" These scho$ars maintain that the Nicene *reedAs
interpretation of !cripture is wrong and they argue that the traditiona$ rendering /on$y
%egotten/ represents a dogmatica$$y?moti3ated misinterpretation of the (ree1 word
" &s one Zaptist scho$ar puts it
The phrase /on$y %egotten/ deri3es direct$y from 'erome (,BY[?B-Y &"+") who
rep$aced unicus (on$y) the reading of the U$d @atin with unigenitus (on$y %egotten)
as he trans$ated the @atin fu$gate" 'eromeAs concern was to refute the &rian doctrine
that c$aimed the !on was not %egotten %ut made" This $ed 'erome to impose the
termino$ogy of the Nicene creed (,-. &"+") onto the New Testament"
(<<)
This author gi3es the trans$ators who ha3e preferred /on$y %egotten/ too $itt$e credit
as if this phrase in the ear$y )ng$ish 3ersions were mere$y an unthin1ing imitation of
the fu$gateAs unigenitus and retained in some modern 3ersions on$y %y the force of a
3er%a$ tradition" Zut the trans$ators of the ling 'ames fersion were not 2ust imitating
the fu$gate when they trans$ated as /on$y %egotten"/ They trans$ated it thus
%ecause they understood it thus in agreement with the interpretation of the word
gi3en in the Nicene *reed" &nd the authorAs contention that 'erome imposed the
termino$ogy of the Nicene creed onto the !criptures when he used unigenitus is
un2ustifia%$e" #t is no imposition on the word to trans$ate it thus"
(<-)
&thanasius and the
other (ree1 Tathers of the ear$y fourth century did not need any @atin 3ersion to
interpret this word for them and in their disputes with the &rians they fre0uent$y
e4p$ained it in the sense /on$y?%egotten/ with e4egetica$ emphasis on the /%egotten"/
#f this were not enough modern scho$ar$y support for this understanding of the word
is certain$y not $ac1ing either" /Un$y?%egotten/ is gi3en as a sense for in
@ustAs Greek-English Leicon of the Septuagint (-nd ed" !tuttgart; +eutsche
Zi%e$gese$$schaft -YY,)" #n the -nd ed" of the Z&(+ $e4icon (<C=C) it is said that
/the meanings only! uni"ue may %e 0uite ade0uate for a$$ its occurrences/ in the
'ohannine $iterature (p" .-=) %ut the $e4icon a$so presents the traditiona$ 3iew in
which the word is understood to mean /on$y?%egotten"/ !ee a$so the artic$e on
monogenes %y Zqchse$ in litte$As Theological #ictionary of the $e% Testament 3o$"
B pp" =,=?B<" Zqchse$ conc$udes that in 'ohnAs (ospe$ the word denotes /more than
the uni0ueness or incompara%i$ity of 'esus/ %ecause it a$so /denotes the origin of
'esus """ as the on$y?%egotten"/ Tor a fu$$ discussion of this matter see 'ohn f" +ahms
/The 'ohannine rse of &onogenes 6econsidered/ $e% Testament Studies -C (<C:,)
pp" ---?-,-" +ahms conc$udes /the e4terna$ e3idence especia$$y from Whi$o 'ustin
and Tertu$$ian and the interna$ e3idence from the conte4t of its occurrences ma1es
c$ear that Aon$y %egottenA is the most accurate trans$ation after a$$"/
(<,)
Un the popu$ar
$e3e$ the recent$y pu%$ished 'eformation Study (ible (@igonier Ministries -YY.)
edited %y a pane$ of respected conser3ati3e scho$ars inc$udes this note on the phrase
/the on$y !on/ in 'ohn <;<B X /This phrase trans$ates a sing$e (ree1 word and
e4p$icit$y points to the eterna$ generation of the !on in the Trinity"/
(<B)
The truth is those who do not ac1now$edge this meaning of the word in
the 'ohannine writings are themse$3es dogmatica$$y moti3ated" Their preferred
trans$ationX/on$y/Xis an undertrans$ation which hides from 3iew a !criptura$ datum
that supports the *hristo$ogy of the ancient *reed %ut which happens to %e unpopu$ar
with modern theo$ogians"
There is a tendency among modern theo$ogians to /di3ide the !u%stance/ of the
(odhead (cf" the warning against this in the &thanasian *reed) %y positing such
independence and e0ua$ity of the Wersons of the Trinity that we can no $onger
concei3e of them as %eing one (od" !ome modern theo$ogians ha3e $itt$e use for the
term $F9 (/one essence/) and they cannot a%ide the idea that there is any
onto$ogica$ priority of the Tather in the Trinity %ecause this is too /hierarchica$/ and
/patriarcha$/ for our ega$itarian age" The !on and the !pirit must %e made tota$$y
e0ua$ to the Tather in a$$ respects e3en if it means ma1ing them into three (ods" This
trend is $arge$y dri3en %y $i%era$ theo$ogians who fa3or the new /socia$ Trinity/
concept (Mo$tmann %eing prominent among them) which imagines the Trinity to %e
$i1e a 3o$untary society of persons who are not onto$ogica$$y connected"
&mong the more conser3ati3e thin1ers there are a$so some who ha3e critici^ed the
Nicene *reed %ecause they refuse any e4p$anation of the re$ationship %etween Tather
and !on which descri%es the !on as %eing secondary to the Tather in his /mode of
su%sistence"/ #n their 3iew it /detracts from the g$ory of the !on/ as 6o%ert 6eymond
puts it" This appears to %e an o3er?reaction to modern rnitarianism" 6eymond c$aims
that 'ohn *a$3in was a$so opposed to the /eterna$$y %egotten/ teaching of the Nicene
*reed for this reason %ut he seems to ha3e misinterpreted *a$3in"
(<.)
5e see a good
moti3e here %ecause 6eymond wishes to defend the di3inity of *hrist %ut he is sti$$
wrong" Tritheism is no $ess heretica$ than rnitarianism"
(<V)
Une often encounters in $i%era$ writers some statement to the effect that the Nicene
doctrine of eterna$ generation deri3es from the emanationist metaphysics of ancient
pagan phi$osophy rather than from the Zi%$e" Not that they care what the Zi%$e saysX
they on$y wish to discredit the Nicene *reed in the eyes of those who do care what the
Zi%$e teaches" rnfortunate$y in recent years this idea has %een pic1ed up %y some
re$ati3e$y conser3ati3e theo$ogians a$so such as Wau$ De$m" #n $ectures and artic$es he
has repeated this canard a$$eging that the Nicene teachings concerning the %egetting
of the !on and the procession of the !pirit /deri3e not from the New Testament %ut
from pagan phi$osophy from Neop$atonism"/
(<=)
Zut anyone who is rea$$y fami$iar
with Neo?W$atonism wi$$ readi$y see how imp$ausi%$e it is to maintain that the Nicene
Tathers %orrowed any e$ement of their *hristo$ogy from this pagan phi$osophy" 5e
gi3e a %rief description of it from Ne3eAs )istory of Christian Thought*
5ith Neo?W$atonism we enter the third century of the *hristian era" The characteristic
defender of Neo?W$atonism was W$otinus who $i3ed in the years &"+" -YB?-VC" Dis
system was epitomi^ed %y his pupi$ Worphyry in the si4 Enneads" /The fundamenta$
conception of this important wor1/ says 5e%er ()istory of +hilosophy p" <V=) /is
emanatistic pantheism" #t $oo1s upon the wor$d as an Ao3erf$owA as a diffusion of the
di3ine $ife and upon its Area%sorptionA in (od as the fina$ goa$ of e4istence"/ This is
the monistic trend in the system of W$otinus in which the wor$d first emanates from
(od and then returns to Dim"
a" The emanation or o,erflo%- (od is a simp$e perfect a%so$ute e4istence" De is Une
and in Dim there is no p$ura$ity or di3ersity" Turthermore De transcends a$$ %eing and
1now$edge" Dis transcendence prec$udes any positi3e statement we may ma1e
concerning Dim" #f we attempt to say anything a%out Dim %y way of definition we
simp$y $imit Dim" Dence we can on$y say what De is not" 5e cannot e3en say that De
thin1s or fee$s or wi$$s" Therefore we must %e content with negati3e statements" !o far
as human 1now$edge whether theo$ogica$ or phi$osophica$ is concerned W$otinus
insisted 3ery strong$y upon (odAs unapproacha%$eness and Dis differentiation from
the wor$d"
&$though (od is the source of a$$ things De ne3erthe$ess did not create the wor$d" Tor
one thing De does not need the wor$d> and for another thing De does not wi$$ to
create the wor$d" The wor$d is on$y an emanation or /o3erf$ow/ from (od" #n this
process of emanation or o3erf$ow there are three stages; (<) the $ous or pure in
mind> (-) the +syche or Soul> and (,) &atter" Through the union of the sou$ with
matter arises the wor$d of phenomena and the sou$ there%y %ecomes %ound up with
morta$ity and e3i$" The entrance of the sou$ into the human %ody constitutes a genuine
fa$$ caused %y the sou$ fi4ing its ga^e upon the earth rather than upon (od" 5hi$e the
%ody is fundamenta$$y e3i$ sti$$ the sou$ may %e %enefited %y its period of
ta%ernac$ing in the %ody" #t wi$$ thus gain cogni^ance of e3i$ and $earn to uti$i^e its
own powers thus starting on its return to (od"
%" The 'eturn or .bsorption- The process is now re3ersed and the de3e$opment
proceeds from the $ower to the higher" #t is the tas1 of the sou$ to return to (od %y
se3ering its connections with the crass materia$ity of the %ody and %y rising higher
and higher in gradua$ stages" Tai$ure to do this wi$$ send the sou$ after death into
another %ody either human or anima$ or 3egeta%$e according to the nature and depth
of its sin" The pure sou$s are co$oni^ed in the stars> on$y the 3ery ripest may return
entire$y to (od" The means %y which this ascending de3e$opment ta1es p$ace are the
mystica$ ecstasy and ascetic ethics" #n the state of mystica$ ecstasy the sou$ transcends
itse$f rises to the wor$d of ideas where it not on$y recogni^es that it is (od %ut
actua$$y %ecomes (od"
(<:)
&$so re$e3ant to our su%2ect is Ne3eAs description of the ear$ier (nostic heresies in
which the concept of di3ine emanations p$ayed an important ro$e"
The Emanation Theory- This theory which was he$d especia$$y %y the &$e4andrians
\he means the &$e4andrian (nostics sM"+"M"] and was e4tensi3e$y de3e$oped %y
them ser3ed to e4p$ain how the wor$d and man came into e4istence" The system of
fa$entinus \circa &"+" <.Y] in particu$ar had a high$y fantastic and specu$ati3e process
of cosmogony \%irth of the wor$d] and theogony \%irth of the gods]" Trom the hidden
(od there emanated a $ong series of di3ine essences (aeons) whose inherent di3ine
power diminished in3erse$y with the distance of remo3a$ from the origina$ di3ine
source" This process of depotentia$i^ation continued unti$ a point was reached where
the spiritua$ e$ement came into contact with matter and was imprisoned in a materia$
%ody" Thus man and the wor$d were created"
The Creator" The $ast $in1 in the theogonic chain was the *reator or demiurge" De was
thought to occupy a midd$e position %etween the wor$d of spirit and the wor$d of
matter and was usua$$y identified with the 'eho3ah?(od of the U$d Testament"
&$though not a%so$ute$y hosti$e and e3i$ he was an inferior and antagonistic %eingXa
%$ind inte$$igence who was ignorant of the good (od and who had unwitting$y
%rought the wor$d and man into e4istence" &rguing from the characteristics of the
'ewish @aw as descri%ed %y 'esus the fa$entinian Wto$omaeus maintained that they
cou$d not ha3e originated from the de3i$" #t must ha3e come from the demiurgeXthe
/midd$e (od/ or /2ust (od/ ()piphanius +an" h" ,<;,?< \sic]) who was regarded as
an ange$ic %eing not free from ma$ice and who go3erned with a $o3e$ess e4terna$
2ustice" (p" .B)
*an we rea$$y suppose that &thanasius and the other Tathers of the *hurch %orrowed
their *hristo$ogy from such phi$osophy[ &t se3era$ important points it is antithetica$
to the teachings of the Zi%$e and o%3ious$y repugnant to orthodo4 *hristian theo$ogy"
!ure$y De$m is wrong when he asserts that the *hristian teaching concerning the
eterna$ generation of the !on deri3es from this source" The mere fact that an idea of
emanation is present in %oth demonstrates nothing"
(<C)
Une might as we$$ c$aim that
the *hristian teaching a%out the immorta$ity of the sou$ deri3es from Neo?W$atonic
teachings a%out the sou$As ad3entures after the death of the %ody" &nd in fact there are
some who do ma1e this c$aimX$i%era$s and cu$tists who ma1e a ho%%y of attac1ing
the Nicene *reed" De$mAs idea that there is a connection %etween the *hristo$ogy of
the Nicene *reed and the pantheistic emanations of Neo?W$atonism is not on$y
unreasona%$e it is irresponsi%$e %ecause it $ends aid to the enemies of orthodo4
*hristianity"
# wi$$ 0uote now from 6oger Zec1withAs answer to De$m and 6eymond in /The
*a$3inist doctrine of the Trinity/ (The Churchman <<.tB \5inter -YY<] pp" ,Y:?,<.)"
Zec1with wrong$y associates their 3iews with the *a$3inistic tradition in his artic$e
%ecause he has ta1en 6eymondAs c$aims a%out *a$3inAs teaching at face 3a$ue (hence
the tit$e /The *a$3inist doctrine of the Trinity/) and he fai$s to notice the modernistic
origins of De$mAs criti0ue of the Nicene *reed" Zut he gi3es a concise and con3incing
rep$y to their contention that the doctrine is unscriptura$"
Though *a$3inist theo$ogians ha3e in genera$ fo$$owed the Nicene teaching with or
without the support of their master some without going as far as Wrofessor De$m
ha3e 3entured to deny the %egetting of the !on %y the Tather in eternity" & good
e4amp$e of this can %e found in a recent %oo1 where the author 6o%ert 6eymond
$ists the main %i%$ica$ passages usua$$y 0uoted in support of this doctrine and c$aims
that they either do not or do not certain$y teach it" They fa$$ into four c$asses" Tirst
are the many passages which use the e4pressions uTatherv and u!onv" De says that
these shou$d %e 3iewed as simp$y denoting usameness of nature and in 'esusv case
e0ua$ity with the Tather with respect to his deity (see 'ohn <Y;,Y?,V)v" #t is difficu$t to
regard this as an ade0uate account for though it is certain$y true that there is a
sameness of nature %etween the two Wersons and that %oth are (od the names
uTatherv and u!onv imp$y a reason for this sameness name$y the %egetting of the !on
%y the Tather" The sameness of nature which ena%$es the !on to re3ea$ the Tather
('ohn <;<:> <-;B.> <B;C) is a resu$t of this fact" 5e saw a%o3e that the re$ationship of
Tather and !on inc$uding the $o3e it in3o$3es a$ready e4isted in eternity so it is not
2ust a way of spea1ing which depends on the incarnation> and if this is so the
%egetting of the !on %y the Tather in eternity is necessari$y imp$ied"
(-Y)
The second c$ass of passage comprises those in which the term monogenes is used
traditiona$$y trans$ated uon$y?%egottenv" These are a$$ with the e4ception of one in the
writings of 'ohn X 'ohn <;<B <:> ,;<V <:> < 'ohn B;C together with De%rews <<;<="
&$$ the 'ohannine passages refer to 'esus %ut the passage in De%rews refers to #saac"
#t is wide$y he$d today that the term shou$d simp$y %e trans$ated uon$yv not uon$y?
%egottenv and when (outside the New Testament) it is used without reference to
chi$dren this is certain$y so> %ut %ecause of the e4treme fre0uency of the $anguage of
%egetting and %eing %orn (the same term in (ree1) in the 'ohannine $iterature it is
he$d %y some that uon$y?%egottenv is in this case a %etter trans$ation" #t certain$y
seems to ma1e %etter sense in 'ohn <;<B where the word is used without a noun and
a$so in 'ohn <;<: if u(odv and not u!onv is the noun in 0uestion (as some maintain
fo$$owing a 3ariant reading)" #n the former 3erse ug$ory as of the on$y?%egotten from
the Tatherv is more meaningfu$ than ug$ory as of the on$y one from the Tatherv and in
the $atter 3erse uthe on$y?%egotten (odv can more meaningfu$$y %e said to ma1e the
Tather 1nown than uthe on$y (odv can" Turthermore if < 'ohn .;<: refers to 'esus as
uhe that was %egotten of (odv which is what most commentators %e$ie3e it is hard
not to see this as re$e3ant to the interpretation of the fi3e passages containing
monogenes especia$$y the three in which (as in this 3erse) the Tather is ca$$ed u(odv"
The third and fourth c$asses of passage contain on$y one passage each 'ohn .;-V and
< 'ohn .;<:" Uf 'ohn .;-V 6eymond c$aims that it refers to the !onvs incarnate ro$e
as Messiah" #t is noteworthy howe3er that the passage uses the eterna$ names of the
two Wersons uthe Tatherv and uthe !onv" #f then it does mean that the Tather has
gi3en the incarnate !on to ha3e $ife in himse$f this might we$$ %e %ecause he had
a$ready gi3en him as the eternal !on to ha3e $ife in himse$f" &nd this wou$d conform
with 'ohn <;B which says of the 5ord or !on of (od not 2ust from the time of the
incarnation %ut from the time of the creation X u#n him was $ifev"
Much $ess dou%t attaches to < 'ohn .;<:" &$though its interpretation is not %eyond
0uestion the difference of tense %etween uwhosoe3er is %egotten of (odv (perfect) and
uhe that was %egotten of (odv (aorist) $eads most commentators to see the $atter phrase
as referring to a different person from the former name$y *hrist" &nd the time when
*hrist was %egotten of (od wou$d ha3e to %e the time when the re$ationship of Tather
and !on commenced name$y in eternity"
The %i%$ica$ %asis of the creda$ doctrine of the Trinity appears therefore to %e secure"
5e can %e than1fu$ that the Tathers em%odied in *reeds the e4egetica$ conc$usions
which they had so patient$y wor1ed out since this ena%$es churches that use the
*reeds to 1eep those conc$usions constant$y %efore their minds" The positi3e
contri%ution which *a$3in made to the e4position of the doctrine %y emphasising the
three Wersons and their e0ua$ity as each %eing (od was a 3a$ua%$e one %ut the dou%t
cast %y some $ater *a$3inists on the eterna$ impartation of the di3ine %eing and nature
%y one Werson to another has %een a regretta%$e de3e$opment and insofar as *a$3in
was responsi%$e for it he has had a negati3e inf$uence a$so" This negati3e
de3e$opment has in3o$3ed an attenuation of trinitarian doctrine and a reductionist
approach to the %i%$ica$ e3idence on which it rests and of these tendencies Wrofessor
De$mvs $ecture is a rather e4treme e4amp$e"
Tina$$y it must not %e supposed that a$$ trans$ators who ha3e preferred /on$y/ o3er
/on$y %egotten/ are de$i%erate$y undertrans$ating the word for theo$ogica$
reasons" Many trans$ators simp$y wish to 1eep their trans$ations simp$e and idiomatic
and the word /%egotten/ does not commend itse$f to those who are trying to trans$ate
the te4t into a fami$iar and contemporary sty$e of )ng$ish" #t may a$so %e that some
trans$ators prefer to $ea3e out the /%egotten/ %ecause they fear that $aymen wi$$
misinterpret this to mean that the !on had a %eginning in time"
(-<)
rnfortunate$y %y
fai$ing to con3ey the /%egotten/ component of meaning in the word they
are in effect discarding centuries of carefu$ theo$ogica$ e4egesis and it seems that we
can hard$y afford this $oss in our generation" 5e need more theo$ogica$ $iteracy in the
churches today and it is not he$pfu$ when trans$ators strip theo$ogica$$y important
words from the te4t of the )ng$ish Zi%$e" The rendering /on$y %egotten/ or some
other e0ui3a$ent e4pression shou$d at $east %e indicated in the footnotes of )ng$ish
3ersions and it is the duty of pastors to e4p$ain what this means"
@et what was confessed %y the Tathers at Nicma pre3ai$" X&thanasius Letters $4i to
Ma4imus &"+" ,=<"
Michae$ Mar$owe
Trinity !unday -YYV
Notes
<" Notwithstanding +"&" *arsonAs contention that in De%rews <<;<=
/c$ear$y cannot mean Aon$y %egotten sonA/ (Eegetical /allacies \Za1er <C:B] p" -C)
commentators on the epist$e to the De%rews ha3e ne3er thought that the use of a term
meaning /on$y %egotten/ in reference to #saac is 3ery pro%$ematic" *a$3in writes in his
commentary on De%rews; /#t may howe3er %e as1ed why is #saac ca$$ed the on$y
%egotten for #shmae$ was %orn %efore him and was sti$$ $i3ing" To this the answer is
that %y (odAs e4press command he was dri3en from the fami$y so that he was
accounted as one dead at $east he he$d no p$ace among &%rahamAs chi$dren"/ (*a$3in
Trans$ation !ociety ed" trans" 'ohn Uwen \)din%urgh <:.,] p" -:=") !imi$ar$y
Marcus +ods e4p$ains that #saac is ca$$ed /on$y %egotten/ %ecause /irrespecti3e of any
other chi$dren &%raham had had or might ha3e it had %een said to him """ in #saac
sha$$ a seed %e named to thee ((en" 44i" <-")> that is to say it is #saac and his
descendants who sha$$ %e 1nown as &%rahamAs seed/ (Epositor0s Greek Testament
3o$" B \@ondon <CYY] p" ,.:)" These e4p$anations are 0uite ade0uate" There is no
need to suppose a meaning of /uni0ue/ for the word here if on$y we wi$$
read the entire sentence inc$uding 3erse <:"
-" 6ichard @ongenec1er /the Une and Un$y !on/ chapter << in The $12* The &aking
of a Contemporary Translation (#nternationa$ Zi%$e !ociety <CC<) p" <--" Tor his
0uotation of the passage from < *$ement @ongenec1er has used '"Z" @ightfootAs
trans$ation (without attri%ution) with on$y a few changes for the sa1e of modern
)ng$ish"
," )ng$ish trans$ation from &$e4ander 6o%erts 'ames +ona$dson and &" *" *o4e
eds" The .nte-$icene /athers* Translations of the Writings of the /athers do%n to
.-#- 345" fo$" <" The .postolic /athers6 7ustin &artyr6 1renaeus" ()din%urgh <::.>
reprinted (rand 6apids; 5m" Z" )erdmans <C.,)"
B" Werhaps @ongenec1er has confused the !eptuagint with the 3ersion done %y &0ui$a
which does ha3e the word here" There are a num%er of such care$ess errors
of fact in @ongenec1erAs artic$e" De states that /in (enesis --;- <- <V and 'u%i$ees
<:;- << <. (possi%$y a$so 'os" .nti"- <;---) monogenes is used of #saac in the sense
of &%rahamAs Afa3oredA AchosenA or Auni0ueA son 3is?a?3is #shmae$"/ (pp" <-<?--") Zut
in fact the !eptuagint does not ha3e the word in (enesis --" #t has the
word IIGSE /%e$o3ed"/ The word does not occur at a$$ in the
Wentateuch of the !eptuagint" #t is hard to understand why @ongenec1er is citing
'u%i$ees here %ecause there is no e4tant (ree1 te4t for the Zoo1 of 'u%i$ees" &nd the
manuscripts of the )thiopic 3ersion of this %oo1 (upon which we re$y for any
indication of the wording in the $ost (ree1 3ersion) do not indicate in the
p$aces @ongenec1er cites" They indicate IIGSE (in $ine with the !eptuagint 3ersion
of (enesis --) or GHeEEM /first %orn"/ Wro%a%$y @ongenec1er 2ust assumed that
the !eptuagint used the word in reference to #saac in (enesis -- %ecause the )pist$e to
the De%rews (which often 0uotes from the !eptuagint) uses the word in reference to
#saac in <<;<=" Zut strange$y $ater in the same paragraph he writes /the @dd a$so
renders yahid %y agapetos ((en" --;- <- <V """/ which seems to indicate that he was
aware of the fact that the !eptuagint uses IIGSE instead of in (enesis
--" #n the same paragraph he a$so asserts that /in Wsa$ms of !o$omon <:;B and )^ra
V;.: #srae$ is referred to as %oth prototokos and (odAs monogenes/ (p" <--) %ut there
is no /)^ra V;.:"/ )3ident$y in this case he has %een confused %y a statement in
Zqchse$As artic$e in the T+NT which says that /There is a stri1ing use of
in Ws"!o$" <:;B ; AThy chastisement comes upon us (in $o3e) as the first %orn and the
on$y %egotten son"A 5ith this may %e compared B )sr" V;.: ; AZut we thy peop$e
whom thou hast ca$$ed the first %orn the on$y %egotten the dearest friend are gi3en
up into their hands"A/ Dere Zqchse$ is referring to the @atin te4t of Tourth )sdras (a$so
ca$$ed !econd )sdras) a %oo1 for which there is no e4tant (ree1 te4t" &pparent$y
@ongenec1er mistoo1 it for a reference to the (ree1 te4t of the canonica$ %oo1 of )^ra
in the !eptuagint" @ongenec1er does not seem to ha3e $oo1ed at the te4ts he refers to>
he is instead re$ying upon secondary sources which we misunderstands and so he
mis$eads the reader into thin1ing that the word is present in the cited te4ts"
." !eptuagint scho$ar 'ohan @ust writes /Tor some De%rew words the trans$ators
emp$oyed a stereotyped (ree1 e0ui3a$ent disregarding the conte4t and semantic
nuances" Thus wxyz was trans$ated as a ru$e %y 9HSS a$though the semantic fie$d
co3ered %y the (ree1 word does not coincide with that of the De%rew" #t is we$$
1nown that this $ed to (ree1 sentences which must ha3e %een hard to understand for
nati3e (ree1 spea1ers e"g" when +a3id spea1s of the 9HSS E8 GP8 (the peace
of the war) in - !am <<"="/ (#ntroduction to . Greek-English Leicon of the
Septuagint \!tuttgart; +eutsche Zi%e$gese$$schaft -YY,] pp" 43iii?4i4)"
V" @ongenec1erAs idea that a meaning of /price$ess and irrep$acea%$e/ can %e
esta%$ished for the word on the %asis of these two occurrences (Wsa$ms --;-Y and
,.;<=) in the !eptuagint has no merit" Zqchse$ argues more p$ausi%$y that when the
!eptuagint uses in these p$aces /the reference is to the uni0ueness of the
sou$/ with a trans$ation /possi%$e on the %asis of the genera$ use of for
Auni0ueA Aunpara$$e$edA Aincompara%$e"A/ (// in Theological #ictionary of
the $e% Testament ed" (erhard litte$ )ng$ish edition 3o$" B \(rand 6apids;
)erdmans <CV=] pp" =,:?C)" Zut he wou$d ha3e done %etter to compare these
occurrences with the one in Wsa$m -.;<V which he ca$$s /an unfortunate trans$ation
%ased on the mista1en %e$ief that here too _`a bc` shou$d %e rendered "/ (p"
=,C n" =")
=" 'ohn Zurnet )ar$y (ree1 Whi$osophy ,rd edition" @ondon; & { * Z$ac1 @td"
<C-Y" Zurnet e4p$ains in a note; /# prefer to read FE9 IH 8PP with W$utarch
(.d,- Col- <<<B c)" Wro1$os (in +arm- <<.- -B) a$so read 8PP" !imp$icius who
has 8 here ca$$s the Une of Warmenides PP e$sewhere (+hys- p" <,=
<.)" The reading of \W$ut"] Strom- . 8 8 he$ps to e4p$ain the
confusion" 5e ha3e on$y to suppose that the $etters were written a%o3e the $ine
in the &cademy copy of Warmenides %y some one who had Tim- ,< % , in mind"
Warmenides cou$d not ca$$ what is Aon$y?%egottenA though the Wythagoreans might ca$$
the wor$d so"/ )3en without this $ast sentence (in which the meaning /on$y %egotten/
is assumed for 8) ZurnetAs argument for the emendation is 0uite ade0uate"
!cho$ars genera$$y admit that pro%$ems of interpretation in c$assica$ $iterature are
often %est so$3ed %y such te4t?critica$ emendations" The te4t of WarmenidesA poem
(written in the fifth century Z"*") is preser3ed on$y in 0uotations of it made in the
wor1s of $ater writers" #n this portion of it the te4t deri3es from 0uotations inc$uded in
a commentary on &ristot$eAs +hysics %y !imp$icius of *i$icia written in the si4th
century &"+"Xmore than a thousand years after Warmenides" &ccording to the
ordinary canons of te4tua$ criticism such a gap in the documentary e3idence for the
te4t of the origina$ composition warrants a high degree of uncertainty a%out its
origina$ wording> and the $i1e$ihood of corruption is increased %y the a%struse nature
of the te4t" )3en scho$ars who specia$i^e in the interpretation of the Wre?!ocratic
phi$osophica$ te4ts ha3e said that Warmenides is /e4treme$y difficu$t to understand and
seems se$f?contradictory to many who study him """ Michae$ *" !to1es o%ser3es that
Warmenides wrote in Aridd$ing fashionA and 'onathan Zarnes contends that
AWarmenidesAs (ree1 is desperate$y hard to understandA and that aspects of it represent
an Aa$most impenetra%$e o%scurityA/ (http;ttwww"enotes"comtc$assica$?medie3a$?
criticismtparmenides accessed -= +ec" -YYV)" #t is 3ery un$i1e$y that his poem has
come down to us without any corruption"
:" #n 0uotations from the Wisdom of Solomon # ha3e used the )ng$ish trans$ation %y
!amue$ Do$mes in 6"D" *har$es ed" The .pocrypha and +seudepigrapha of the 8ld
Testament in English! %ith 1ntroductions and Critical and Eplanatory $otes 3o$" <
(U4ford <C<,) pp" .<:?.V:" #n his introduction to the %oo1 Do$mes compares the
authorAs personification of 5isdom to the personification of the 5ord (@ogos) in
Whi$o and o%ser3es that in Whi$o /The @ogos is not un%egotten as (od """ Un the other
hand it is not %egotten as man """ 5e sha$$ perhaps not %e far wrong if we attri%ute the
same idea to our author with regard to the persona$ity of 5isdom"/ (p" .-:) &nd the
o%3ious para$$e$s here with 'ohnAs statements a%out the !on are too c$ose to %e
ignored"
C" (ree1 te4t from Whi$ip !chaff Creeds of Christendom 3o$" - (Vth ed <C,<) p" VY>
)ng$ish trans$ation from 3o$ < pp" -:?-C" The Nicene *reed norma$$y recited in
churches today is more proper$y ca$$ed the Niceno?*onstantinopo$itan *reed" #t is a
re3ision of the origina$ *reed associated with the second ecumenica$ counci$
con3ened at *onstantinop$e in &"+" ,:<" #n it the re$e3ant sentences read gI9 9 I
M8H9 nSF8 oH9FE E 89 E8 R8 E S E M E8 GIEH
REI GH GIEe Ee I9ee Oe M OeE R IPSR9 M R8 IPSR98
REI 8 G9REI 8F9 Ee GIEH9i 79 8 EI GIEI E """ /&nd \we
%e$ie3e] in one @ord 'esus *hrist the on$y %egotten !on of (od eterna$$y %egotten of
the Tather @ight from @ight true (od from true (od %egotten not made of one
Zeing with the Tather> through whom a$$ things were made """/
<Y" )ng$ish Trans$ation %y &" 6o%ertson from 3o$" B of . Select Library of the $icene
and +ost-$icene /athers" #n 3iew of the importance attached to this point of e4egesis
%y the *hurch Tathers # find it hard to understand how @ongenec1er can insist upon
the N#fAs rendering /Une and Un$y"/ De e3en maintains that /on$y %egotten/ is
undesira%$e /particu$ar$y %ecause it $ea3es open the possi%i$ity of an etymo$ogica$
emphasis on genes (the idea of generation)"/ (op cit- p" <-V") De not on$y disagrees
with the interpretation of the word emphasi^ed %y &thanasius he e3en o%2ects to the
rendering /on$y %egotten/ particularly %ecause it /$ea3es open the possi%i$ity/ of this
interpretation|
<<" *hristopher *hurch /Un$y Zegotten/ in the )olman (ible #ictionary (Zroadman
{ Do$man <CC<)"
<-" @i1ewise 'ohn *a$3in was certain$y not /imposing the termino$ogy of the Nicene
*reed/ upon the te4t of !cripture when he used the word unigenitus as a trans$ation of
in his @atin commentary on the Tirst )pist$e of 'ohn" 6ather he simp$y
recogni^ed that unigenitus was the %est @atin e0ui3a$ent for the word as did 'erome"
!ee *a$3inAs @atin te4t at < 'ohn B;C in the *a$3in Trans$ation !ocietyAs edition of his
Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles ()din%urgh <:..)"
<," +"&" *arson in his Eegetical /allacies (Za1er <C:B) offers a %rief response to
+ahms in which he focuses on the !eptuagintAs trans$ation of Wsa$m -.;<V S
""" 99 e (# am monogenes)" The De%rew here has the ad2ecti3e yahid /on$y/ used in
a su%stanti3e sense $it" /# am an on$y one"/ *arson assumes that the !eptuagint
trans$ator wou$d ha3e understood the De%rew to mean /# am a$one/ or /$one$y"/ 5e
grant that this is pro%a%$y the meaning of the De%rew %ut if the !eptuagint trans$ator
thought so why does he not use the common word here[ 5e wou$d e4pect
99 e if he had wanted to say /# am a$one"/ *arson further maintains that the
trans$ator cannot ha3e meant /# am an on$y %egotten one/ here %ecause /+a3id wrote
the Wsa$m and +a3id had many si%$ings/ (p" ,Y n" <,)" Zut we cannot assume that the
(ree1 trans$ator interpreted this 3erse with +a3id and his %rothers in mind" The
Wsa$ms of +a3id are poetry they contain many hyper%o$ic and metaphorica$
statements that were not $itera$$y true of +a3id (e"g" Wsa$m --;<B?<:) and this wou$d
ha3e %een 2ust as o%3ious to the !eptuagint trans$ators as it is to us"
<B" rnfortunate$y the )ng$ish !tandard fersion trans$ation used in this edition does
not point to it" 5e hope that this defect is repaired in future editions of the )!f"
<." !ee 6eymondAs $e% Systematic Theology of the Christian /aith (Nash3i$$e;
Thomas Ne$son <CC:) pp" ,-B?,,Y" 6eymond misunderstands 3arious remar1s in
*a$3inAs #nstitutes which are directed against the teachings of a contemporary
fa$entine (enti$e as if they were directed against the Nicene Tathers" &ccording to
*a$3in /certain rasca$s/ of his own time (fa$entine (enti$e and his discip$es)
asserted that the Tather /in forming the !on and the !pirit infused into them his own
deity/ and thus in a /dreadfu$ manner of spea1ing/ they say that the Tather is the on$y
/essence gi3er"/ #n opposition to this teaching *a$3in affirms in the 3ery words of the
Nicene *reed that *hrist /is the !on of (od %ecause the 5ord was %egotten %y the
Tather %efore a$$ ages"/ (1nstitutes <"<,"-,)" &n again in arguing against the errors of
!er3etus who he$d that /the 5ord for the first time %egan to %e when (od opened his
ho$y mouth in the creation of the uni3erse/ *a$3in asserts that /it is necessary to
understand the 5ord as %egotten of the Tather %efore time/ (<"<,"=?:)" 6eymond
comp$ete$y misunderstands *a$3in here if he e0uates the /dreadfu$ manner of
spea1ing/ of *a$3inAs /rasca$s/ with the Nicene *reed itse$f" 6egarding *a$3inAs
statement that /it is foo$ish to imagine a continuous act of %egetting since it is c$ear
that three persons ha3e su%sisted in (od from eternity/ (<"<,"-C) this is not directed
against the /eterna$$y %egotten/ teaching of the Nicene *reed as 6eymond wou$d
ha3e the reader thin1> rather it is directed against the unprofita%$e discussions a%out a
perpetua$ %egetting %ithin time found in @om%ardAs Sentences #" i4" <Y?<." There is no
indication in any of *a$3inAs writings that he disagreed with the doctrine of eterna$
generation as set forth in the Nicene *reed" Un the contrary; he positi3e$y affirms it
and uses it against rnitarian heretics of his time" #n a withering re3iew of 6eymondAs
%oo1 that appeared in the Westminster Theological 7ournal V-t- (Ta$$ -YYY) pp" ,<B?
,<C 6o%ert @etham ta1es him to tas1 for his misrepresentation of *a$3in; /6eymond
cites one short paragraph from 5arfie$dAs fine artic$e A*a$3inAs +octrine of the TrinityA
to argue that *a$3in re2ected Nicene trinitarianism (,,B?,.)" This artic$e is ninety?fi3e
pages $ong and 5arfie$d repeated$y affirms *a$3inAs appro3a$ of the Niceno?
*onstantinopo$itan doctrine of the trinity" Tor instance A#t wi$$ ha3e a$ready %ecome
apparent """ that in his doctrine of the Trinity *a$3in departed in nothing from the
doctrine which had %een handed down from the orthodo4 Tathers"A De a$so under$ines
*a$3inAs Aper3asi3eA appro3a$ of eterna$ generation and eterna$ procession (-BB?B.)|
Trom this $ong artic$e 6eymond e4tracts one sma$$ paragraph and uses it to counter a$$
5arfie$d has carefu$$y stated o3er scores of pages" This is shoddy/ (p" ,<C)"
<V" # do not see how one can ho$d that Tather !on and Do$y !pirit must each ha3e Dis
own /attri%ute of se$f?e4istence/ as 6eymond demands (. $e% Systematic Theology
of the Christian /aith p" ,-V) without %rea1ing them into three (ods> and # see no
!criptura$ warrant for insisting upon se$f?e4istence as an /attri%ute/ proper to the !on"
#t is more correct to say that se$f?e4istence pertains to the essence of di3inity which
the !on shares %ut not to the hypostasis of the !on as such" !o we must re2ect
6eymondAs idea that /it detracts from the g$ory of the !on/ when an /attri%ute of se$f?
e4istence/ is not ascri%ed to the !on" &s *har$es Dodge says /se$f?e4istence
independence etc" are attri%utes of the di3ine essence and not of one person in
distinction from the others" #t is the triune (od who is se$f?e4istent and independent"
!u%ordination as to the mode of su%sistence and operation is a scriptura$ fact> and so
a$so is the perfect and e0ua$ godhead of the Tather and the !on and therefore these
facts must %e consistent"/ (Systematic Theology 3o$ < p" B=B") &gain the moti3e for
this appears to %e goodX6eymond imagines that he is defending the /g$ory of the
!on/ (p" ,-:) %y re2ecting the Nicene formu$ationsX%ut we must %e carefu$ not to
deny part of the Truth whi$e defending another part of it" Tertu$$ian once o%ser3ed (in
.gainst +raeas chap" <) 2arie diabolus aemulatus est ,eritatem- .dfecta,it illam
ali"uando defendendo concutere" (#n 3arious ways the de3i$ has 3ied with the Truth"
!ometimes he has tried to sha1e it %y defending it")
<=" !ee De$mAs artic$e /Uf (od and of the Do$y Trinity; & 6esponse to +r"
Zec1with/ The Churchman <<.tB (5inter -YY<) pp" ,.Y?,.="
<:" '"@" Ne3e . )istory of Christian Thought 3o$" < (Whi$ade$phia; Muh$en%erg
Wress <CBV) pp" -B?-."
<C" #n his treatise .gainst +raeas Tertu$$ian descri%es how the 5ord may %e
understood to %e %egotten %y the Tather as an emanation of Dis eterna$ ratio
(correct$y interpreting the 9 :;< in 'ohnAs pro$ogue as %oth sermo /word/ and ratio
/reason/)> and is if to answer De$mAs charge of pagan phi$osophica$ inf$uence in this
conception he writes /#f any man from this sha$$ thin1 that # am introducing some
GHLPSXthat is to say some pro$ation (prolatio) of one thing out of another as
fa$entinus does when he sets forth mon from mon one after anotherXthen this is my
first rep$y to you; Truth must not therefore refrain from the use of such a term and its
rea$ity and meaning %ecause heresy a$so emp$oys it" The fact is heresy has rather
ta1en it from Truth in order to mou$d (struo) it into its own counterfeit" 5as the 5ord
of (od put forth (prolatus est sermo dei) or not[ Dere ta1e your stand with me and
f$inch not" #f De was put forth then ac1now$edge that the true doctrine has a
pro$ation> and ne3er mind heresy when in any point it mimics the truth" The 0uestion
now is in what sense each side uses a gi3en thing and the word which e4presses it"/
The essentia$ difference %etween the use of the emanation concept in the *hurch
Tathers and its use in the metaphysics of fa$entinus and W$otinus is that the former use
it on$y to e4p$ain the generation of the !on and the procession of the !pirit in the
(odhead whereas the $atter use it to e4p$ain the creation of the wor$d" The (nostics
and Neo?W$atonists taught that the who$e uni3erse consisted of a series of emanations
from (od"
-Y" *oncerning the meaning of the terms /Tather/ and /!on/ 6eymond urges that
these words /must not %e freighted with the 5estern ideas of source of %eing and
superiority on the one hand and of su%ordination and dependency on the other" 6ather
they shou$d %e 3iewed in the %i%$ica$ sense as denoting sameness of nature and in
'esusA case e0ua$ity with the Tather with respect to his +eity/ ($e% Systematic
Theology p" ,-.)" This attempt to characteri^e the concept of fi$ia$ su%ordination as
an un%i%$ica$ /5estern idea/ a%out the father?son re$ationship is 0uite unsupporta%$e"
#f any distinction is to %e drawn %etween the ancient )astern and modern 5estern
concepts of sonship sure$y it is the ancient )astern cu$ture which emphasi^es more
strong$y the su%ordination of the son to the father" The idea that an /e0ua$ity/ e4ists
%etween fami$y mem%ers is a distinct$y modern and 5estern idea and 0uite foreign to
the Zi%$e" Zut Zec1withAs answer here does not depend upon any cu$tura$
considerations $i1e this" Dis point is that the %i%$ica$ terms /Tather/ and /!on/ in
themse$3es necessari$y inc$ude the idea of a %egetting" The point is e4pressed more
amp$y %y 5i$$iam (" T" !hedd; /""" these trina$ names gi3en to (od \Tather !on and
Do$y !pirit] in the %aptisma$ formu$a and the aposto$ic %enediction actua$$y force
upon the trinitarian theo$ogian the ideas of paternity generation fi$iation spiration
and procession" De cannot ref$ect upon the imp$ication of these names without
forming these ideas and finding himse$f necessitated to concede their $itera$ 3a$idity
and o%2ecti3e rea$ity" De cannot say that the first person is the Tather and then deny
that he /%egets"/ De cannot say that the second person is the !on and then deny that
he is /%egotten"/ De cannot say that the third person is the !pirit and then deny that
he /proceeds/ %y /spiration/ (spiritus "uia spiratus) from the Tather and !on" 5hen
therefore &ugustin $i1e the primiti3e fathers genera$$y endea3ors to i$$ustrate this
eterna$ necessary and constitutiona$ energi^ing and acti3ity (opera ad intra) in the
+i3ine )ssence where%y the !on issues from the Tather and the !pirit from Tather
and !on %y the emanation of sun%eam from sun $ight from $ight ri3er from fountain
thought from mind word from thought """ nothing more is done than when %y other
we$$?1nown and common$y adopted ana$ogies the +i3ine unity or omniscence or
omnipresence is sought to %e i$$ustrated" There is no ana$ogy ta1en from the finite
that wi$$ c$ear up the mystery of the infiniteXwhether it %e the mystery of the eternity
of (od or that of his trinity" Zut at the same time %y the use of these ana$ogies the
mind is 1ept c$ose up to the Zi%$ica$ term or statement and is not a$$owed to content
itse$f with on$y a ha$f?way understanding of it" !uch a method %rings thoroughness
and c$earness into the interpretation of the 5ord of (od"/ (/#ntroductory )ssay/ to
&ugustineAs 8n the )oly Trinity in 3o$" , of +ost $icene /athers of the Christian
Church ed" !chaff \)din%urgh; T" { T" *$ar1 <::=])" #t is no /pretentious
metaphysica$ specu$ation/ as 6eymond ca$$s it (p" ,,=) when we mere$y recogni^e
the p$ain imp$ications of the %i%$ica$ terms /Tather/ and /!on"/
-<" Une wou$d $i1e to thin1 that trans$ators who ha3e a high 3iew of scripture wou$d
not simp$y cut out an important word for fear that it wou$d %e misinterpreted %ut it
does seem $i1e$y that this moti3e is at wor1 here" &nd the fears are certain$y 2ustified"
# notice that in the &oody )andbook of Theology (Moody Zi%$e #nstitute <C:C) Wau$
)nns in his e4p$anation of the Trinity right$y e4p$ains that /the !on is eterna$$y
%egotten from the Tather ('ohn <;<:> ,;<V <:> < 'ohn B;C)" The term generation
suggests the Trinitarian re$ationship in that the !on is eterna$$y %egotten of the Tather/
(p" -YY)" Zut two pages $ater when he %egins to dea$ with /those who deny the
Trinity/ on account of /pro%$ematic terms/ which /seem to imp$y that *hrist is
inferior to the Tather/ he asserts that /#t is with reference to the humanity of *hrist
that the term begotten is used> it cou$d ne3er %e used with reference to his deity"
Zegotten does not re$ate to 'esusA %eing the !on of (od"/ (p" -Y-) De then goes on to
e4p$ain that monogenes in 'ohn <;<B <: ,;<V and < 'ohn B;C means /uni0ue/ and not
/on$y?%egotten/ (p" -Y,)" )nns contradicts himse$f here e3ident$y %ecause he is not
rea$$y fami$iar with the doctrine of the eterna$ %egetting and its !criptura$ %asis" #f this
is the case with writers of popu$ar theo$ogica$ hand%oo1s how can untutored $aymen
%e e4pected to interpret the /%egetting/ $anguage of !cripture in an orthodo4 way[
Zut this is where the teaching ministry of the church must come in"
C.S. Lewis on the Only-Begotten Son
from &ere Christianity
Une of the creeds says that *hrist is the !on of (od /%egotten not created/> and it
adds /%egotten %y his Tather %efore a$$ wor$ds"/ 5i$$ you p$ease get it 0uite c$ear that
this has nothing to do with the fact that when *hrist was %orn on earth as a man that
man was the son of a 3irgin[ 5e are not now thin1ing a%out the firgin Zirth" 5e are
thin1ing a%out something that happened %efore Nature was created at a$$ %efore time
%egan" /Zefore a$$ wor$ds/ *hrist is %egotten not created" 5hat does it mean[
5e donAt use the words %egetting or %egotten much in modern )ng$ish %ut e3eryone
sti$$ 1nows what they mean" To %eget is to %ecome the father of; to create is to ma1e"
&nd the difference is this" 5hen you %eget you %eget something of the same 1ind as
yourse$f" & man %egets human %a%ies a %ea3er %egets $itt$e %ea3ers and a %ird %egets
eggs which turn into $itt$e %irds" Zut when you ma1e you ma1e something of a
different 1ind from yourse$f" & %ird ma1es a nest a %ea3er %ui$ds a dam a man ma1es
a wire$ess setXor he may ma1e something more $i1e himse$f than a wire$ess set; say
a statue" #f he is a c$e3er enough car3er he may ma1e a statue which is 3ery $i1e a man
indeed" Zut of course it is not a rea$ man> it on$y $oo1s $i1e one" #t cannot %reathe or
thin1" #t is not a$i3e"
Now that is the first thing to get c$ear" 5hat (od %egets is (od> 2ust as what man
%egets is man" 5hat (od creates is not (od> 2ust as what man ma1es is not man" That
is why men are not !ons of (od in the sense that *hrist is" They may %e $i1e (od in
certain ways %ut they are not things of the same 1ind" They are more $i1e statues or
pictures of (od"
} } } } } }
# said a few pages %ac1 that (od is a Zeing which contains three Wersons whi$e
remaining one Zeing 2ust as a cu%e contains si4 s0uares whi$e remaining one %ody"
Zut as soon as # %egin trying to e4p$ain how these Wersons are connected # ha3e to use
words which ma1e it sound as if one of them was there %efore the others" The Tirst
Werson is ca$$ed the Tather and the !econd the !on" 5e say that the Tirst %egets or
produces the second> we ca$$ it %egetting not ma1ing %ecause what De produces is of
the same 1ind as Dimse$f" #n that way the word Tather is the on$y word to use" Zut
unfortunate$y it suggests that De is there firstX2ust as a human father e4ists %efore his
son" Zut that is not so" There is no %efore and after a%out it" &nd that is why # ha3e
spent some time trying to ma1e c$ear how one thing can %e the source or cause or
origin of another without %eing there %efore it" The !on e4ists %ecause the Tather
e4ists; %ut there ne3er was a tune %efore the Tather produced the !on"
Werhaps the %est way to thin1 of it is this" # as1ed you 2ust now to imagine those two
%oo1s and pro%a%$y most of you did" That is you made an act of imagination and as a
resu$t you had a menta$ picture" ~uite o%3ious$y your act of imagining was the cause
and the menta$ picture the resu$t" Zut that does not mean that you first did the
imagining and then got the picture" The moment you did it the picture was there"
kour wi$$ was 1eeping the picture %efore you a$$ the time" ket that act of wi$$ and the
picture %egan at e4act$y the same moment and ended at the same moment" #f there
were a Zeing who had a$ways e4isted and had a$ways %een imagining one thing his
act wou$d a$ways ha3e %een producing a menta$ picture> %ut the picture wou$d %e 2ust
as eterna$ as the act"
#n the same way we must thin1 of the !on a$ways so to spea1 streaming forth from
the Tather $i1e $ight from a $amp or heat from a fire or thoughts from a mind" De is
the se$f?e4pression of the TatherXwhat the Tather has to say" &nd there ne3er was a
time when De was not saying it" Zut ha3e you noticed what is happening[ &$$ these
pictures of $ight or heat are ma1ing it sound as if the Tather and !on were two things
instead of two Wersons" !o that after a$$ the New Testament picture of a Tather and a
!on turns out to %e much more accurate than anything we try to su%stitute for it" That
is what a$ways happens when you go away from the words of the Zi%$e" #t is 0uite
right to go away from them for a moment in order to ma1e some specia$ point c$ear"
Zut you must a$ways go %ac1" Natura$$y (od 1nows how to descri%e Dimse$f much
%etter than we 1now how to descri%e Dim" De 1nows that Tather and !on is more $i1e
the re$ation %etween the Tirst and !econd Wersons than anything e$se we can thin1 of"
Much the most important thing to 1now is that it is a re$ation of $o3e" The Tather
de$ights in Dis !on> the !on $oo1s up to Dis Tather"