You are here: Home / Archives for September 2013

Tares Amongst the Wheat A Conspiracy Without a Goal

09/10/2013 20 Comments


by Cris Putnam
TaresThis is my review of Chris Pinto’s film, Tares Amongst the Wheat. Personally, I like Chris Pinto having met him and spent some time talking in the hospitality suite at the first Future Congress. I’ve also enjoyed his past films and even quoted him in my own published work. I also share his zeal in opposing Rome. In Petrus Romanus I discussed a lot of same issues regarding papal authority and the undermining of scripture that are presented in Tares. I wrote an entire chapter centered on “The Donation of Constantine” a Vatican forgery used to undergird papal authority for hundreds of years.

Thus, I am well aware that Rome has a record of altering history and forging documents. I am not predisposed to doubt Pinto’s thesis but I do.

The film is centered on the idea that Codex Sinaticus or “Sinai Bible” was actually created as part of a Vatican conspiracy to undermine biblical inerrancy. I agree with Pinto and others that the Vatican has a vested interest in undermining Sola Scriptura and have argued vigorously that the Bible contradicts Rome’s theological traditions. So the idea is that Rome conspired to forge a Bible that differs significantly from the reformation efforts is plausible. However, Pinto’s conspiracy has huge gaping hole that seems fatal.

After watching the film and hearing Greek New Testament scholar Dan Wallace’s response, I am unconvinced that Codex Sinaticus is a forgery because the conspiracy is fundamentally incoherent. There’s no discernible pay off for the conspirators. The movie did not present any evidence that modern Bibles help Catholic theology in any meaningful way or undermine inerrancy. In fact, I think the opposite is true.  The problem for the Tares Amongst the Wheat thesis is that Codex Sinaticus is just as caustic to Rome’s traditions as the King James Version.  You would think that if Rome were going to concoct a forgery they might include something about Mary or purgatory but this is not the case. Where’s the payoff for Rome?

Why does Dr. James White, who argues vigorously against Catholic apologists in defense of reformation theology, find the conspiracy to be ridiculous?  He comments here.  It is because he is aware of the textual critical issues that Pinto is not… the conspiracy is not even possible once you realize what it would necessarily entail. If one bothers to look into textual criticism, you will quickly see that Sinaticus undergirds an entire text type.

Sinaticus is in general agreement with Codex Vaticanus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, following the Alexandrian text-type. The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the Greek New Testament that is seen in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text-type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts. It seems to reflect the oldest tradition and hence the original documents. In later manuscripts (from the 9th century on), the Byzantine text-type became far more common and remains as the standard text in the Greek Orthodox church and also underlies most Protestant translations of the Reformation era. There are more of them but most scholars put quality over quantity. The KJV and its reverse engineered Greek parallel Textus Receptus are of the Byzantine type. But even so, not a very ancient strain.

The problem with Textus Receptus is it is based on Erasmus’ edition which is based on only six very late Greek manuscripts (10th century) and the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus was a Roman Catholic humanist, so its rather odd that he gets a pass from Pinto. Even worse, the last few verses of Revelation are actually transcribed directly from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek because Erasmus did not have the Greek for the last section. In fact, in over twenty passages, Erasmus’ Greek text are not supported by any known Greek manuscript.[1] This disturbing fact makes TR much more of Roman Catholic origin than Pinto seems to realize.

The problem is that the Alexandrian text type has a huge number of papyri fragments that support it.  This is taken from Wikipedia and is based on David Allen Black’s New Testament Textual Criticism:

Uncials: Codex Coislinianus, Porphyrianus (except Acts, Rev), Dublinensis, Sangallensis (only in Mark), Zacynthius, Athous Lavrensis (in Mark and Cath. epistles), Vaticanus 2061, 059, 068, 071, 073, 076, 077, 081, 083, 085, 087, 088, 089, 091, 093 (except Acts), 094, 096, 098, 0101, 0102, 0108, 0111, 0114, 0129, 0142, 0155, 0156, 0162, 0167, 0172, 0173, 0175, 0181, 0183, 0184, 0185, 0189, 0201, 0204, 0205, 0207, 0223, 0225, 0232, 0234, 0240, 0243, 0244, 0245, 0247, 0254, 0270, 0271, 0274.

Minuscules: 20, 94, 104 (Epistles), 157, 164, 215, 241, 254, 322, 323, 326, 376, 383, 442, 579 (except Matthew), 614, 718, 850, 1006, 1175, 1241 (except Acts), 1243, 1292 (Cath.), 1342 (Mark), 1506 (Paul), 1611, 1739, 1841, 1852, 1908, 2040, 2053, 2062, 2298, 2344 (CE, Rev), 2351, 2427, 2464.  [2]

That’s not all of them either. So for Pinto’s conspiracy to work not only is Codex Sinaiticus a forgery, it means that all of these papyri which share the same text type were similarly forged and planted in archeological sites around Egypt and middle east. It starts to get prohibitively absurd when you consider the amount of effort and the number of conspirators that would be required. Even for the Jesuits…

However even if we allow for the sake of argument that all of this is a huge Vatican conspiracy, it just doesn’t compel because you can debunk Peter as pope, the mass as a sacrifice, indulgences, and prayers to Mary and the Saints with an NIV.  As far as undermining inerrancy, I find the long ending of Mark from Textus Receptus to be much more problematic.  “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mk 16:18. KJV)  In contrast, the oldest manuscripts of the Alexandrian text type do not have this passage and modern scholars believe it to be a late edition. Unless you are willing to drink a glass of poison to prove your point, it seems to me that the modern scholars have done inerrancy a huge favor.


[1] Doug Kutilek, “Erasmus, His Greek Text And His Theology,” accessed September 10, 2013

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm

 

[2] David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism, Baker Books, 2006, p. 64.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With KJVonlyism, Rome, Textual Criticism

The Forgotten Trinity

09/07/2013 5 Comments

Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Mt 22:37)




I love the trinity! How can a professing Christian be passionless for what is supposed to be the central doctrine of the faith? The Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine, but these days it seems to be all but forgotten. People who claim to be Christian no longer seem to think it is important yet the very Gospel of our salvation is trinitarian. Note that Dr. White states clearly that the denial of it is to apostatize from the Christian faith: to deny the trinity is a denial of the Gospel. Dr. Norman Geisler says the same here. If you doubt this, you need to listen to this lecture carefully. If you have no doubt, then God bless, this lecture will greatly encourage you.

The doctrine of the Trinity is based on three foundational biblical truths:
1) Monotheism: The Bible teaches there is one and only one true God.

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”(Dt 6:4)

“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.“(Is 43:10) Jesus applied this text from the Septuagint to himself: “I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.”(Jn 13:19)

2) Three Divine Persons: There are three distinct persons who are God: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

  1. The Son speaks to the Father (John 12:28). He is a distinct person.
  2. The Father speaks to the Son (Matthew 3:17). He is a distinct person.
  3. The Holy Spirit also speaks (Acts 13:2). He is a distinct person.
Each has all the basic elements or powers of personhood: mind, will, and emotion.

Son: The three elements of personhood all are attributed to God the Son. The Son can communicate and teach (John 7:17) as only persons do. He has intelligence and knowledge – mind- (John 2:25):“and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.(Jn 2:25); emotion (John 11:35): “Jesus wept”; and will (John 6:38): “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.”(Jn 6:38). The personal pronoun “He” is used consistently of the Son.
 
Father: The three elements of personhood all are attributed to God the Father. He has the power of intellect to know (Matt. 6:32):“your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.”; the emotional faculty to feel (Gen. 6:6): “And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.”; and the power of will to choose (Matt. 6:9–10): “Our Father in heaven … your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” In addition, personal attributes, like the ability to communicate (Matt. 11:25) and teach (John 7:16–17), are also attributed to the Father.
 
Spirit: All the elements of personhood are attributed to the Holy Spirit in Scripture. He has a mind (John 14:26): “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you.” He has will (1 Cor. 12:11): “All these are the work of one and the same spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines”; and He has feeling (Eph. 4:30): “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

Personal pronouns (“He” and “His”) are attributed to the Holy Spirit: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”(John 16:13, emphasis added).

The rules of grammar dictate that personal pronouns have an antecedent within the context of the pronoun[1], it is not within the proper use of language to claim that “he” in John 16:13 is referring to anyone other than the Holy Spirit.
 
3) Co-equal and Co-eternal: The three divine persons are co-equal and co-eternal. Because very few people deny the deity of the Father, most of the attacks center on denying the deity of Christ and deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit. (video: 11:14-11:16)

  1. The Father is called God (Phil. 1:2).
  2. Jesus is called God (John 1:1,14).
  3. The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4).

 

Father: Yahweh (YHWH) is the name given by God for Himself in the Old Testament. It is the name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, when God said, “I am who I am.”

 

Jesus: The strongest claim Jesus made to be Yahweh is in John 8:58, where He says, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” This statement claims not only existence before Abraham, but equality with the “I am” of Exodus 3:14. The Jews around Him clearly understood His meaning and picked up stones to kill Him for blaspheming (cf. John 10:31–33). The same claim is also made in Mark 14:62 and John 18:5–6.

 

Thomas saw Jesus’ wounds and exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Paul wrote, “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!” (Rom. 9:5). He calls Jesus the one in whom “all the fullness of Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). In Titus, Jesus is “our great God and Savior” (2:13), and the writer to the Hebrews says of Him, “Your throne, O God,” The New Testament opens with a passage concluding that Jesus is Immanuel (“God with us”), which refers to the messianic prediction of Isaiah 7:14. The very title “Christ” carries the same meaning as the Hebrew appellation “Messiah” (“Anointed One”). In Zechariah 12:10, Yahweh says, “They will look on me, the one they have pierced.” The New Testament writers apply this passage to Jesus twice (John 19:37; Rev. 1:7) as referring to His crucifixion.

 

Holy Spirit: Attributes of God such as life (Rom. 8:2); truth (John 16:13); love (Rom. 15:30); holiness (Eph. 4:30); eternality (Heb. 9:14); omnipresence (Ps. 139:7); and omniscience (1 Cor. 2:11) are ascribed to the Spirit. Particular acts are associated only with God; both God the Father and the Son are said to perform these acts, and so is the Holy Spirit. These include the act of creation (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30); the acts of redemption (Isa. 63:10–11; Eph. 4:30; 1 Cor. 12:13); the performance of miracles by His own power (Gal. 3:2–5; Heb. 2:4); and the giving of supernatural gifts (Acts 2:4; 1 Cor. 12:4–11).

 
These are the three foundations that all Christians should know in order to give a meaningful defense of the Christian faith. If someone worships a non-triune God, they have constructed a false god. It is not the same God as the God of the Bible.  It is not just a simple doctrinal disagreement because we are not even worshiping the same God. It goes against the first commandment. It is blasphemous. It qualifies as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to say that the person of the Holy Spirit does not exist, is just a force, or is not God. I hope those of you who claim to love God will love him as the triune God who exists with all of your mind as well as your heart (Matthew 22:37).

 

[1] “Pronoun”, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology, Michael S. Heiser, (Logos Bible Software, 2005).

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Cult, Rob Skiba, Trinity

Dr. Michael Heiser: The Trinity in the Hebrew Bible

09/06/2013 2 Comments

With all of the misinformation of late, this lecture from a scholar (with a real doctorate from a real school) is very helpful. Mike was my Old Testament II adjunct professor at Liberty Baptist Seminary. He is a wonderful Hebrew Bible scholar. Thank you Dr. Heiser!

Filed Under Apologetics

The Gross Errors of Russ Pappy Houck and Rob Skiba

09/05/2013 82 Comments

By Cris D. Putnam
Pappy Houck

Russ “Pappy” Houck


Unfortunately, Rob Skiba has fallen under the false teaching of a cultic pseudo-scholar named Russ “Pappy” Houck. Houck has written a book entitled:  EPIDEMIC: Examining the Infected Roots of Judaism and Christianity that appears to be the source of Rob’s theological errors. Rob has promoted Houck on his radio show and says that Houck “changed his life.” This is most unfortunate for Mr. Skiba. Please do pray for him. One can go to Amazon.com and browse through the book here.  On page 356, I was able to locate the probable impetus of Skiba’s Trinitarian heresy – denying the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Houck, Epidemic, page 356

 [1]

Houck demies the trinity explicitly and thoroughly. On page 382, he argues that Jesus, “was never co-equal with the Father, YHWH, and is not part of Trinity godhead.” Rob Skiba’s main argument against the person of the Holy Spirit also comes from this book. Houck writes, “I realized that if there are three persons, as taught in Triniatrianism, then Yeshua (Jesus) is not the son of the Father, but the son of the Holy Spirit.”[2] Of course, I previously refuted that misunderstanding here. The book is full of similar misinformation.  Houck writes, “I discovered that,  …in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost… (Mat. 28:19) was not in any of the early manuscripts.”[3] Houck falsely claims that Constantine added the Trinitarian formula to Matthew 28. This is simply not true because all extant manuscripts contain the phrase “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Not a single textual variant is listed in the critical Greek New Testament:

19 πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,   [4]

It’s not missing from any manuscript. This is more than shoddy research…

Furthermore, early citations from the Church Fathers bear this out:

Ignatius lived in the first century, the time of apostles. The second chapter of his “Epistle to the Philippians” reads “He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”[5]

Tertullian, (c. 200 AD) a century before Constantine, writes in On Baptism, “sealed in (the name of) the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,”[6]

Thus, Houck’s claims are patently false. It leads one to seriously question his claimed academic credentials. A real scholar would not make such obvious blunders.  Unfortunately, it only gets worse.

Apparently, Mr. Houck sacrifices a lamb every Passover. This makes the Roman Catholic repeated Eucharistic sacrifice almost seem sound… well almost.  For the record, I have written strongly against the mass as a sacrifice here.  It is not my desire to misrepresent what Skiba and Houck believe. I am aware that they believe this as an act of remembering Jesus sacrifice for their sins, incidentally the same excuse the Roman Catholics use for parsing the Eucharist as a sacrifice.  It’s not the remembrance that is troublesome, it is that Houck implies it is a requirement.  Houck really seems to think he is bound to kill a animal on passover. Perhaps, someone can enlighten us as to just why this is required? At the 1:26:00 mark forward in the video below, Skiba and Houck discuss the annual Passover sacrifice on Houck’s Texas ranch.

Skiba: As the one who facilitates that in your home, what is that like? And how does that help you, first of all understand the Father’s heart but secondly how does that help you not even to want to sin anymore?

Houck : Well that’s the words I used to you, it makes you not want to sin anymore. It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done. Every year, it’s the hardest thing we’ve ever done. I’m not a hunter. I’m not a fisherman. I don’t enjoy killing anything either and never have. I live out on a ranch so I have to kill varmits and I get no pleasure in even killing varmits.  It is not about pleasure at all, it’s about obeying a commandment[7]and I can tell you that when I take that knife and cut the throat of the lamb, um, it is eh… I have worked hard to try and figure a way to get out of this, ok? Don’t let anybody kid you, the first time you do it, it is a mind boggling experience and I’m not trying to be funny. I’m being honest, it is absolutely… you sit there and you go… you can’t believe what you do and you can’t believe the reaction. And if you choose a sheep verses a goat cause it says you can do either, the little sheep will just stand there and do nothing.  I mean there’s no resistance, there’s no fight, there’s no nothing… and you literally go into a spiritual place, that again, when you finish you know why Constantine wanted to take it away from us. Because it gives you the understanding, a spiritual precept, and here’s a statement that I have made many times, you can talk about well, did the Jews kill Jesus?  Did the Romans kill Jesus? Who killed Jesus? Right?  The fact is I killed Jesus, ok?, my sin. He said he dies for my sin. That means he had to die, his blood was spilled for me.  And when I kill that lamb, I reiterate the fact that his blood was spilt for me. [8]

The above text was transcribed from time mark 1:27:30 – 1:29:59.  I transcribed more than was necessary in order to fairly represent the context of what he was saying. I allow that Houck ostensibly claims to believe that Jesus died for his sins. But what does he mean by saying it is commanded that he do this? And that he has tried to find a way out of it but that is not an option? Nothing in New Testament remotely implies New Covenant believers are to sacrifice animals, in fact, the exact opposite is clearly taught.

The book of Hebrews makes it clear that the sacrificial system was done away with at the cross.

“And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Heb 10:11–14)

If you have any doubts about this, please study Hebrews chapters nine and ten.  Like with the Baptismal formula, Houck also claims the Constantine was the one who removed the practice of animal sacrifice. That is utter nonsense, divorced from any semblance of historical reality. The New Testament alone abolished the practice of animal sacrifice. Christians no longer have to offer animal sacrifices and keep other ceremonial parts of the OT laws, they are abolished: “He does away with the first in order to establish the second.” (Heb 10:9) In order to establish the second means the old covenant was abolished in light of the new. “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb 8:13)  The sacrifices were abolished in order for God’s moral and spiritual will to be done. Constantine had nothing to do with it. Houck is dangerously mistaken.

In the book of Acts, the early church met to decide if gentile Christians were bound to keep the law. James stood up and said:

“Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.” (Ac 15:19–20)

Paul also makes this clear in passages like: “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.” (Ro 8:2)  Even worse for Houck, when the Galatian Judaizers attempted to add circumcision to the Gospel, Paul replied, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” (Ga 5:4)  If merely adding the requirement of circumcision to the Gospel results in being “severed form Christ,” I shudder to imagine what the requirement of animal sacrifice might entail.

 

 

[1] Russ Houck., Epidemic Examining the Infected Roots of Judaism and Christianity: How Do We Find God with All This Mess? (volume 1) (Corsicana, TX: Negev Publishing, 2012),  365.

[2] Houck, Epidemic, 354.

[3] Houck, Epidemic, 354.

[4] Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini et al., The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (With Apparatus) (2000; 2006), Mt 28:19.  Also see: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html

[5] Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians Chapter II.—Unity of the three divine persons.  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.xvii.ii.html

[6] Tertullian, On Baptism Chapter VI.—The Angel the Forerunner of the Holy Spirit. Meaning Contained in the Baptismal Formula. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.vi.iii.vi.html

[7] What commandment requires animal sacrifice for New Covenant Christians?

[8] “Epidemic: Exploring The Infected Roots of Judaism and Christianity – Dr. Russ “Pappy” Houk”  Revolution Radio Projecy with Rob Skiba http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5BpJdCK9yc  1:27:30 – 1:29:59

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Cults

Reply to Rob Skiba on the Denial of the Personhood of the Holy Spirit

09/02/2013 76 Comments

trinityMatthew 28:19: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” reveals two essential facts about the nature of God: 1) The singular form of “name” indicates that God is one, and that His nature is singular (one divine essence); and 2) Within this one God are three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, something given especially strong emphasis in the original Greek: “τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος” with the three recurring definite articles “τοῦ” before Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This orthodox biblical understanding of God’s triune nature has recently come under attack from someone within my sphere of influence.

Rob Skiba is the co-founder of King’s Gate Media and the author the non-fiction book, Babylon Rising: And The First Shall Be Last. I had a friendly relationship with him until some of his theological positions raised serious concerns. When I confronted Mr. Skiba about his theological assertions he first denied being a teacher. He asserts he is merely “asking questions.” He has no theological education or proficiency in biblical languages that I am aware of. But he not only represents himself as an authority, he has published Bible studies like Wisdom From The Torah Book 1: Genesis. and he is listed as a teacher at a Hebrew Roots Movement event here.  He has a large following and his arguments are fair game for critique. My purpose is to dissect his strongest argument and show why it leads to a false conclusion.

The previous post on this website concerning the Holy Spirit was prompted by my ongoing debate with Skiba in a Facebook thread here.  If you bother to read through it, it will be clear that he is doing a lot more than asking questions. At this stage, his cards are on the table and he is very clearly denying the Trinity and even characterizing the classical formula (one God in three persons) as a heresy. The following is Rob Skiba’s recent response to my defense of majority view of the Trinity (one God in three persons).

Your “majority view” is the very definition of absolute heresy (I don’t care how many have had it, nor for how long) because it of necessity requires a literal view of the Holy Spirit as a third PERSON in the Godhead. For that to be true, Matthew 1:18-20 requires a belief that Jesus was NOT the only begotten of the Father, but rather of the “person” Holy Spirit. You people will never own up to it (convenient to just ignore it), but the fact remains, your doctrine removes the Father from being just that – because according to the standard model, He was not the “person” who impregnated Mary, the Holy Spirit was.  source

The display of hubris is astounding. His strongest argument against the personhood of the Holy Spirit is as follows:

1)                  Jesus is described as “the only begotten of the Father” (Jn 1:14, KJV)

2)                   Matthew 1:18 gives the Holy Spirit the role of impregnating Mary. “…she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”(Mt 1:18)

3)                   If the Holy Spirit is person then Jesus cannot be begotten of the Father.

Therefore, “one God in three persons” must be false.

The alleged problem between Matthew 1:18 and the doctrine of the Trinity reveals a basic misunderstanding concerning, “only begotten.” This archaic translation found in the King James Version contributes to his confusion and is a favorite of those like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who assert Jesus is a created being.  The Greek word monogenēs, properly means “one of a kind, unique.”

Here is a scholarly Greek lexicon entry:

58.52 μονογενής, ές: pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class—‘unique, only.’ τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ‘he gave his only Son’ Jn 3:16; τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεός ‘God sent his only Son’ 1 Jn 4:9; τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος ‘he who had received the promises presented his only son’ or ‘… was ready to offer his only son’ He 11:17. Abraham, of course, did have another son, Ishmael, and later sons by Keturah, but Isaac was a unique son in that he was a son born as the result of certain promises made by God. Accordingly, he could be called a μονογενής son, since he was the only one of his kind.[1]

It is more properly rendered “the one and only from the Father.” Modern translations have clarified and corrected the English for greater accuracy.

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.(Jn 1:14, ESV)

“And the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from the Father, full of grace and truth.(Jn 1:14, LEB)

Jesus is the “Son of God,” not in the sense of being born (see John 1:3), but in the sense of being a Son who is exactly like his Father in all attributes, and in the sense of having a Father-Son relationship with God the Father.

But Jesus was the unique son of the Father eternally before the incarnation. Jesus refers to his preexistence in his famous High Priestly Prayer: “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” (Jn 17:5). Like with Abraham’s son Isaac the term μονογενής is not about his physical birth but rather his status.

Interestingly, this discussion brings to mind Psalm 2 which states: “I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” (Ps 2:7)  In Hebrew the term used in yalad which generally does imply birth. However, employing a hermeneutic of allowing scripture to interpret scripture, the Apostle Paul clarified the meaning of begotten in Psalm 2:

“this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “ ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’ And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, “ ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’”(Ac 13:33–34)

According to Paul, Jesus was begotten of the Father at the resurrection.  I wonder if Rob will now admit his error?


[1] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 590.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Holy Spirit, Rob Skiba, Trinity
Newer Posts »