In what sense is Jesus the Son of God?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

The problem is that you are reading something into John 3:31 that is not there. John does not say "he who is the physical offspring of God is above all." John describes Jesus as "coming from above," "coming from heaven." I take this to mean very simply that Jesus came from heaven, whereas John, who by contrast is "of the earth" and "earthly," did not. The issue here is not simply that each of us has his own interpretation. In fact, my "interpretation" arises from the words of the text in their context, without reading something into it that is not there. That is something that cannot be said for your suggested explanation.

I have not read anything more into the text then you have for you supposing that this verse cuts the LDS position of a premortal exsistance. You have to read something into the verse for that to happen. I guess we are both guilty.

[LeSellers]

Thayer has been out of date for at least a century.

"Out of date" does not mean "wrong".

Lehi

[volgadon]

"Out of date" does not mean "wrong".

Lehi

With lexicons it frequently does. At the very least, Thayer is not a very dependable source. His lexicon came out before the papyrii discoveries, and before a lot of important studies, and so on.

[volgadon]

One wonders why it was good enough for seventeen centuries, but suddenly, in the XX, it's no longer accurate.

Because the disciplines of history and linguists came into their own during the 20th, and better use of source material and parallels was made.

[Vance]

You claim that it must refer to Jesus "in light of the 'if' 'and' statement (a classic Hebrew logic statment equivalent to our 'if, 'then' logic statement)."

Yep, that is what I said. What I meant to add (and thought I did) was that I was referring to verse 12 of the same chapter.

Once again, let's quote the whole verse:

"(1) He that cometh from above (2) is above all: (3) he that is of the earth (4) is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: (5) he that cometh from heaven (6) is above all" (John 3:31).

There is no "if--and" statement in this verse.

I didn't say the "if--and" statement was in THAT verse.

I have no idea what Bible you're reading, . . .

I was reading the KJV John 3:12. Now if you had read the whole chapter to get the context, you might have noticed verse 12.

Vance, but I don't see any such "Hebrew logic" expression in this verse.

I didn't say it was in THAT verse.

The actual logic of this verse is not hard to see or understand.

That is correct, especially in the context of the WHOLE chapter.

The verse has three clauses, each of which functions a separate line:

"He that cometh from above is above all:

he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth:

he that cometh from heaven is above all."

And verse 12 says,

'If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?'

Since God the Father did not "come from above" or "come from heaven," but Jesus did, the first and third lines in context must refer to Jesus the Son. It is Jesus the Son, then, who "is above all" in both the first and third lines.

Agreed.

The middle line expresses direct contrasts between Jesus and someone else.

In the context of the whole chapter, you are incorrect.

Jesus comes from above, from heaven; this someone else is of the earth.

But there is no "someone else". This verse is ONLY talking about Jesus as verse 12 clearly shows.

[Vance]

The contrast between coming from heaven and being of the earth is obvious.

There is no contrast between two persons there, because the whole verse is talking about Jesus.

Jesus is from heaven; this other is "earthly."

There is no "other", only Jesus, as verse 12 clearly shows.

Jesus "is above all"; this other is not.

There is no "other", so no conclusion about any "other" can not be made.

Who is this other?

He is simply the fabrication of a deluded mind and does not exist in the real world.

The context makes this clear:

The context IS clear, it just doesn't support your position.

John the Baptist is speaking (verse 27). He expresses several contrasts between himself and Jesus:

Not in verse 31.

Verse 31 is only referring to Christ.

In verse 28 John refers to himself as "I" and to Christ as "him.

In verse 29 John refers to Christ as "he" and "him", then mentions his [John's] joy as "my".

In verse 30 John refers to himself as "I" and to Christ as "He".

So clearly, IN CONTEXT, verse 31 is only referring to Christ.

He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

CLEARLY, John is referring only to Christ.

The implications of this statement for the notion that all human beings preexisted in heaven should be obvious.

Yes, they should!!!

And they are NOT what you are selling.

In fact, they are obvious, which is probably why you have had such a difficult time with this verse.

It is rather OBVIOUS who is having a difficult time with this verse.

[Vance]

ACtually I disagree with part of your interpretion, you see this as evidence against a pre-exsistance. I see this verse as evidence that Christ is a physical offspring from God the Father and Mary his mother. As He would be the only one that had a physical body given to him by an Immortal Father, that none of us have had.

I agree!

And I think it is rather obvious when you understand that verse 31 is only talking about Christ.

[Vookman]

The argument about the term "only begotten" is a relatively modern issue, coming about in the past 100 years. It is interesting that we only 'discovered' its REAL meaning in the past 100 years doesn't include the idea of familial begetting.

In 1983 John V. Dahms reviewed the issue in New Testament Studies, vol. 29, pp. 222-232, and lays out the issues quite nicely, in my opinion. While there clearly are uses where monogenes means "unique", the NT usage lean more towards the 'only begotten' and not just 'unique' definition. Here are the three "non-controversial" NT citations:

Luke 7:12 Now as He approached the gate of the city, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and a sizeable crowd from the city was with her.

Luke 8:42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years old, and she was dying. But as He went, the crowds were pressing against Him.

Luke 9:38 And a man from the crowd shouted, saying, "Teacher, I beg You to look at my son, for he is my only boy,

All these quotes come from NASB, and show what I think is an obvious corruption, as each of these passages is contextually far better understood as "only begotten", and not just "only", meaning "unique" or "one of a kind".

As for the ever misconstrued Hebrews 11:17, Isaac as the "monogenes" of Abraham, Dahms points out that in the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, Ishmael is noted to be a son, but that "In Izhak shall sons be called unto thee, and this son of the handmaid shall not be genealogized after thee." Dahms further notes that Genesis 22 describes Isaac as the son of Abraham's wife, and significantly in Genesis 21:9-12

9Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking.

10Therefore she said to Abraham, "Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac."

11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because of his son.

12 But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.

Isaac is the "only begotten son" of Abraham in God's sight, even though he acknowledges Ishmael as Abraham's descendant, he is not seen as his heir or son, but the child of his handmaid.

Dahms also notes (pg 224) that Philo uses some form of a LXX which uses Monogenes of Isaac, and Philo says (de Abr., 194) "He [Abraham] had begotten no son in the truest sense but Isaac."

Which is interesting on several levels, but Philo uses "monon" for only, (but monogenes for the quotation from Gen 22) which is a perfectly good Greek word and certainly the most commonly used term in Greek for the idea of "only one" out of a particular kind (BDAG, 3rd Edition, 2000, page 658), though it argues "monogenes" in "renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all of its occurrences here[in John]". By contrast, the primary meaning in Liddell and Scott (pg 1144) is "the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single", and among other citations notes John 1:14. Since that portion of L&S was completed in 1940, we see what I think is a more realistic interpretation of 'monogenes' by noting kinship is the first definition to consider.

So Isaac can be seen as the "only begotten son" of Abraham in perfect consistency with the them of the letter of Hebrews in teaching the doctrine of Christ to the Christians of Hebrew descent.

The problem, however, of this understanding becomes stark, IMHO, in John 1:18, where the probable original text is "monogenes theos", and if therefore the Son is the "Unique" God in the bosom of the father, it destroys the supposed Trinitarian relationship of the Son to the Father or God.

The passages used by John are better understood as being about the Physical nature of Christ's existence, since Hebrews 2:10-17 makes it clear that Jesus is one of many brethren. There is nothing unique about him, in terms of his spiritual birth (Heb 12:9, compare Luke 23:46, Jesus is a spirit son of God).

I don't deny that Jesus was unique, both before his birth and while on the Earth. But that is because of his divinity, something he shares with us afterwards (2 Pet 1:4). It makes no sense to call him a "unique, one of a kind" son since Adam is likewise described as the "son of God" in scripture. It is about his pro-creation, that unlike Adam, who was created from the dust of the Earth, Jesus has a mother and father. The old DNA sourcing argument is the only thing which would differentiate Jesus as a "son".

I posted on my blog a few days ago, before I had seen this thread, that the reality is that for Evangelicals, there really is no relationship between the Father and Jesus, for exactly the line of argument which Rob B. espouses here. If Jesus is not the son of the Father, then the Father is not his father in any sense of the "abba" describing a father-son relationship. The very late "knowledge" that monogenes only means unique and not only begotten is part of the re-interpretation of history which I think is primarily theologically driven, and does not fit the historical documentation.

Jerome, the legendary Latin Bible translator, seemed to agree. He translated "monogenes" as "unigenitus" in all the John and Hebrew passages. The phrase "monogenes" generally has reference to the descent of an individual, and as Dahms notes (pg 227)of the writings of Justin Martyr, it clearly does carry the meaning of "only begotten". Likewise, John 1:13 uses "gennao", which means birth, in describing how people are "born of God", immediately preceding John 1:14, where Jesus is described as the "monogenes of the father".

Dahms concludes by noting there is not much support for the modern idea of strictly unique as the meaning of "monogenes", and contrasts it to the native, contemporary understanding of Philo, Justin and Tertullian, as well as Jerome, that "only begotten" is the best rendering of "monogenes", which implicitly carries the idea of birth or genetic descent. While Dahms was criticized for his position, I find the critics arguments weak when their supposed citations are placed in context.

Sorry for the length of this response, but I hope it is seen as helpful to the discussion.

[wenglund]

Sorry for the length of this response, but I hope it is seen as helpful to the discussion.

It was very helpful and informative to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Thanks for clarifying that you had John 3:12 in mind when you talked about an "if--and" statement. You never actually referred to that verse previously.

Apparently, your argument is that Jesus' statement in John 3:12 that he told Nicodemus "earthly things" proves that he is the one that John the Baptist said in John 3:31 "speaks of the earth." But these statements do not mean the same thing. To tell "earthly things" means to talk about things that are true on the earth. Jesus claimed to have both earthly and heavenly things to tell Nicodemus; his point was that if Nicodemus wouldn't believe the former he certainly wouldn't believe the latter. To "speak of the earth" (John 3:31) means to speak from the limited perspective or source of what people can know whose origin and life is limited to that of the earth--who are, as John says, "of the earth." What John literally says is, "the one who is of/from (ek) the earth is of/from (ek) the earth and speaks of/from (ek) the earth." The preposition ek, which can be translated "of" or "from," in this context identifies the earth as the place from which this one originates and from which this one speaks. Therefore, John 3:31 is not talking about the same point as John 3:12.

Your other argument, as I understand it, is that John the Baptist in John 3:28-30 supposedly referred only to Jesus in the third person and referred to himself only in the first person, so that "the one who is of the earth and speaks of the earth" cannot be John. This isn't an exegetically sound argument. In John 3:28, John contrasts Jesus as "the bridegroom" with himself as "the friend of the bridegroom," but does not say "I am the friend of the bridegroom." In that verse he uses a third-person verb (charei, "he rejoices") to refer to the friend's joy. Thus, in verse 28, John speaks of himself in the third person. If he can do it in verse 28, he can do it in verse 31.

I don't think any LDS scholars would follow your exegesis here. The usual view, when LDS scholars comment at all on John 3:31, is the view that Mola advocated--that John was contrasting himself as a human with two mortal parents and Jesus as a human with an immortal father. Robert Matthews, for example, interprets John 3:30-31 to mean, "He was divine, I was but a mortal" (Studies in Scripture, Volume 5, The Gospels, 173). Bruce McConkie rewrites John 3:27-36 in a free paraphrase that includes the statement, evidently paraphrasing John 3:31, "he, as the Son of an immortal Father, is greater than I" (McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:147). I don't think this interpretation fits the passage, either, but my point is that you seem to be all on your own with your explanation.

[Rob Bowman]

Vookman,

I don't have time at the moment to go into details, but a good article that critiques the arguments of Dahms (and others) on the meaning of monogen?s is Gerard Pendrick, "MONOGENHS," New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 587-600.

[Vance]

Apparently, your argument is that Jesus' statement in John 3:12 that he told Nicodemus "earthly things" proves that he is the one that John the Baptist said in John 3:31 "speaks of the earth." But these statements do not mean the same thing.

So your position is that to tell "earthly things" isn't to "speak of the earth"?

And to "speak of the earth" isn't to tell "earthly things"?

No response needed.

To tell "earthly things" means to talk about things that are true on the earth. Jesus claimed to have both earthly and heavenly things to tell Nicodemus;

Right!!

And to speak of those "earthly things" has absolutely NOTHING to do with "speak[ing] of the earth"?

No response needed.

To "speak of the earth" (John 3:31) means to speak from the limited perspective or source of what people can know whose origin and life is limited to that of the earth--who are, as John says, "of the earth."

This is just a bunch of BSDRIVEL.

You have absolutely NO basis for this interpretation (other than FORCING it to get your desired outcome).

Your contorted reasoning may play well with the sycophants at IRR, but please!

What John literally says is, "the one who is of/from (ek) the earth is of/from (ek) the earth and speaks of/from (ek) the earth." The preposition ek, which can be translated "of" or "from," in this context identifies the earth as the place from which this one originates and from which this one speaks.

1) The EXACT same pronoun "ho" is used in all three phrases of verse 31.

2) Since Jesus' physical body came "of" or "from" the earth, He is not excluded from this phrase.

3) Since Jesus' "speaks of the earth", He is not excluded from this phrase.

Therefore, John 3:31 is talking about the same point as John 3:12.

Your other argument, as I understand it, is that John the Baptist in John 3:28-30 supposedly referred only to Jesus in the third person [PRONOUN] and [NEVER] referred to himself only in the first third person PRONOUN, so that "the one who is of the earth and speaks of the earth" cannot be John.

Correct [now].

This isn't an exegetically sound argument.

I look forward to your contortions to show just that.

In John 3:28, John contrasts Jesus as "the bridegroom" with himself as "the friend of the bridegroom," but does not say "I am the friend of the bridegroom."

. . . but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him [Jesus], rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

Your problem is that in the Greek "friend"/[philos] is not preceded by a definite article ("the"), but is left indefinite and therefore should have been rendered "a friend of the bridegroom". John then describes what would cause "a friend of the bridegroom" to "rejoiceth greatly". John then states that "That joy is mine, and it is now complete"(NIV).

In that verse he uses a third-person verb (charei, "he rejoices") to refer to the friend's joy.

Nice contortion there. The verb chairei means "is rejoicing", no pronoun required.

Thus, in verse 28, John does NOT speak of himself in the third person. If he doesn't do it in verse 28, he doesn't do it in verse 31.

I don't think any LDS scholars would follow your exegesis here.

Well, since you don't accept their scholarship, why even bring them up?

I mean, after all, if you DON'T believe them, isn't a little bit suspect to use them when it seems oddly convient?

Either way, your usage of these verses as "proof" against the pre-mortal existence of man fall FLAT on its face.

I don't think this interpretation fits the passage, either,

So you say you don't believe it, but you expect me to?

Again, how does this support you assertion that these verses deny the pre-mortal existence of man?

Edited in an effort to sooth Rob's sensibilities.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

This is just a bunch of BS.

Congratulations. You finally went so far in your personal attacks against me that I have for the first time on this forum issued a formal complaint to the moderators and notified them that I found your post offensive.

I will say it again: My problem with you, Vance, is not that you are LDS. My problem with you is with your attitude.

[urroner]

What is meant by "begotten?"

be

[Hestia]

Vance and others refrain from personal insults.

[Vance]

Congratulations. You finally went so far in your personal attacks against me that I have for the first time on this forum issued a formal complaint to the moderators and notified them that I found your post offensive.

I will say it again: My problem with you, Vance, is not that you are LDS. My problem with you is with your attitude.

I will gladly retract my "personal attack" in that post, if you would be so kind as to point it out. I just don't see where I attacked YOU personally.

Attack your argument, Yes, I did that.

You personally? Not at all.

[Vookman]

Without a trip to the U of U or BYU library, I am not going to be picking up Gerard Pendrick, "MONOGENHS," New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 587-600. $30 for 13 pages is just not going to happen.

Instead, I would refer you to http://www.bible-researcher.com/monogenes.html. I have been to this guys website before (Michael Marlowe), and he does meticulous work. His information on monogenes and also on the Only Begotten is very informative. His reaching into early Christian history, including drawing information out of the creeds, as well as looking at every occurrence of "monogenes" in the OT LXX and the NT, as well as some examples out of history, is precise, clear and extremely compelling.

I read the summary on Pendrick's article, and I have seen the thrust of the argument before: Generally the common meaning of 'monogenes' is 'unique' in Greek literature, therefore that path should be followed in Biblical interpretation. Marlowe's work shows why such inductive logic fails when confronted by the actual usage by OT and NT writers.

I will try to get to the library this week, as I am interested, but don't expect me to comment on Pendrick's article until then.

[canterdogs]

Wow Rob! Great job on this thread! A true yeoman's effort!

A general comment coming out of this forum is that the LDS position on the nature of Christ is rather confusing. Is Jesus the eternal God in keeping with Revelation 1, John 1 and Revelation 22? Or is Christ a literal created being? If we humans are eternal spirits, co-existing and brothers with Christ, then what is the difference between us and Jesus?

It seems to me that LDS go through theological gymnastics to try and reconcile the idea that Jesus (and us) are physically procreated by the Father and the the clear picture that we get from scripture that Jesus is the eternal God, uncreated and the creator of all things.

It's truly amazing that LDS accuse orthodox Christians of confusing the nature of the Godhead when Joseph Smith's oversimplification of the nature of God has led to the sorts of contradictory positions about Jesus that LDS must hold.

[canterdogs]

Also, the fact that some LDS on this forum have resorted to sarcasm or worse is very disappointing. Rob, you've been very faithful to scripture and when you have shown that the LDS position can not stand up to the light of the Bible you have been met with some outlandish arguments and blatant misrepresentation of both your arguments and scripture.

[Calm]

the clear picture that we get from scripture that Jesus is the eternal God, uncreated and the creator of all things.

So in your opinion, Jesus' body is eternal and uncreated?

[canterdogs]

So in your opinion, Jesus' body is eternal and uncreated?

The Bible tells us that Jesus became flesh. Jesus the person was uncreated. He was always known as the Son as Rob has clearly pointed out.

It is utter nonsense to etertain such a question as you posed above. Jesus is the eternal uncreated God, who became flesh and dwelt among us because of His great love for us.

[Calm]

The Bible tells us that Jesus became flesh. Jesus the person was uncreated.....

It is utter nonsense to etertain such a question as you posed above. Jesus is the eternal uncreated God, who became flesh

So what is the difference than between Jesus being an eternal being that became flesh and Jesus being an eternal being that became flesh and spirit? Why does the first make him "uncreated" yet the second makes him "created"?

[jmordecai]

And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world."

John 8:23

[urroner]

Instead, I would refer you to http://www.bible-researcher.com/monogenes.html.

It looks like a great article, but, if one doesn't read Greek, the true impact of the article can be quickly lost.

[Vookman]

John 1 doesn't teach Jesus is "the eternal God". It teaches his nature is the same as God's. As the "Translator's Handbook to the Gospel of John", by Newman and Nida and published by United Bible Societies (obviously not LDS, but in fact Trinitarian in their philosophical position) on pages 8-9 notes:

..."God" is here the equivalent of an adjective, and this fact justifies the rendering he (the Word) was the same as God. John is not saying that "the Word" was God the Father, but he is affirming that the same divine predication can be made of "the Word" as can be made of God the Father, and so "the Word" can be spoken of as God in the same sense

.

To make sure there is no misunderstanding of what the passage means, the authors immediately add:

Many languages have two quite different types of equational sentences. One type indicates complete identity in such a sentence as "My husband is John Smith" or "John Smith is my husband," that is, the two parts of the sentence are completely equivalent. In the second type, however, one may say "John Smith is a teacher" but cannot say "A teacher is John Smith." "A teacher" merely qualifies "John Smith" and indicates the class of persons to which he belongs. The latter is precisely the type of equational sentence which occurs in this verse. "God" completely characterizes "the Word," and all that is true of God is true of the Word. This does not mean, however, that the two elements can be inverted, and that one can translate "God was the Word" any more than one can make "Love is God" an inversion of the Biblical statement "God is love." It is difficult for some people to recognize that this equational sentence in Greek belongs to the second class because in the predicate the term "God" refers to a unique object. Since this type of equational sentence may be misleading with "God" in the predicate, it is better to translate it "The Word was the same as God" or "Just what God was is what the Word also was."

There are probably rules against placing this much text into a posting, so I apologize. But the false statement that there is only one God in John 1 in view is absolutely refuted by the grammar used by John. While the Jehovah's Witness translation that "and the Word was a god" is too stark for the ears of Trinitarians, it is in fact a very valid translation which, but for the theological bias of the Trinitarian community, would be in some form widely disseminated.

Daniel Wallace, who is also a Trinitarian, affirms the content of Newman and Nida's assertions, though he tries to avoid the obvious problem of the existence of two divine beings by stating

"...that the "Word shared all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 269

I find it funny that he must theoligcalize the grammar of John 1:1 by editorializing that the "Father" and "essence" are to be understood in the context of this verse, when the Words aren't found in the verse or even the context of the verse. Says Wallace:

The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.GGBTB, p 269, emphasis in the original

Similar arguments are easily accrued for the Revelation 1 analysis. Jesus is clearly distinct in Revelation from God. He is a second God. This position was explicitly affirmed by Justin Martyr and Origen, both of whom were considered 'orthodox' in their day. It wasn't until later that their writings came into question because of their direct statements about Christians worshipping two Gods.