God and His Son

[DavidinWichita]

Steve and other board members,

I need your help to address a question I'm having trouble with from someone who's highly analytical in his approach to the gospel. The question raised by this person was as follows:

How can on the one hand God become the man Jesus, and on the other hand be said to give us his Son as a sacrifice? "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son," yet God was the Son...in the flesh. How could God give his Son, yet be that Son that was manifest in the flesh?

One the one hand we have this:

Joh 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son

On the other hand, we have this:

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of our creed: God was manifest in the flesh,

How can both be true? How can it be said God was manifest in the flesh, but in doing so he was giving us his Son? And how was it such a huge sacrifice to God, he asks, to give his one and only Son when he was the Son, and he knew that the Son was going to rise from the dead?

Thanks for your help,
David

[steve]

Well, a standard trinitarian answer would be that Jesus is God the Son, and He is not God the Father. Both are "God," but they are separate "Persons." Thus, "God the Father" sent "God the Son." God (the Son) came and died; but He was sent by God (the Father).

This explanation would resolve the apparent verbal contradiction that your friend is finding so difficult. However, it may bring its own difficulties in its wake.

First (a mere preliminary matter), some will complain that the Bible never uses the phrase or title "God the Son." This is a semantic issue, and does not touch upon the substance of the explanation. That Jesus is called "the Son" and also "God" at least opens the possibility of adopting the term "God the Son." Furthermore, we have a close proximity of the expression in John 1:18 (Alexandrian Text): "God only-begotten." The term "only-begotten" —monogenés—is probably better translated "unique" or "one and only"—but the adjective always modifies the word "Son" whenever referring to Jesus, and is used substantively, as the equivalent of "son," in Hebrews 11:17. If so, then the phrase, "God the monogenés" would be mighty close in meaning to the phrase "God the Son."

The more considerable problem is in seeing God, prior to the incarnation, as three heavenly individuals, like a committee or a family. This may be the correct understanding of the trinity, and it is certainly the way most people visualize the concept. Understandably, many Christians find this picture problematic when trying to explain how this understanding of the trinity avoids being identical to polytheism. The whole thing may simply be an inaccessible mystery to us, as many suggest, though Christians have always tried to somewhat demystify the concepts by appeal to familiar analogues.

[Warning: The following is mere conjectural rambling, and may be dangerously misleading, so proceed, if at all, with caution)

The Bible seems to affirm two concepts in tension with each other, namely, that God is in some sense one, and in some sense three. However, the canonical writers never present the doctrine of the trinity in the terms that have traditionally been passed down to us (e.g., the word "substance" is never used when the scripture speaks of God's oneness, nor is the word "Persons" used to explain how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another). Are there three "Persons," or is there any better way to look at it? I don't know. I do think, though, that familiarity with the traditional language ("one in substance; three in person") does not prepare me for a statement like Pauls, in Colossians 2:9—

"in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Young's Literal Translation)

The traditional picture would have led me to expect, "in him doth tabernacle one third of the Godhead bodily."

Jesus, in the nearest thing to an explanation of this mystery that we are likely to get from Him, said: "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me" (John 14:10). What, exactly, does that mean?

Many analogies have been attempted to provide a frame of reference for us to grasp the trinity—there is that of H2O in its three forms (ice, water, and steam); or that of an egg (having a shell, an egg white, and a yolk); or the comparison of the tripartate nature of man; etc. None of these enjoy the sanction of scripture. I have another suggested analogy (which also lacks scriptural endorsement). Lemonade. Yes, I know it sounds corny, but it is helpful to me, so bear with me.

Since God is a Spirit, and the analogies in scripture for spirit are often of liquids (e.g., water, oil)—I feel justified in choosing a familiar liquid for an illustration. There are three ingredients in lemonade—water, lemon, and sugar. Leave one out, and you do not have the right components to have lemonade. Nor is any one of the ingredients, by itself, apart from the others, lemonade. Each component adds its own characteristic to make the sum what it is.

We have difficulty picturing "persons" as being "in" each other, as in Jesus' statement, above. But the ingredients in a liquid solution are truly intermixed and "in" each other.

To use a truly "earthly" illustration, imagine a huge punchbowl full of lemonade. Let it be infinitely large—too large, in fact, to fathom or to measure. It is very daunting to try to take-in the vastness of this great sea of lemonade. One might even drown in it. However, if a ladle were to be dipped into the bowl, emptied into a smaller vessel, and brought to a thirsty traveler, then it could certainly be tasted and experienced. What that traveler would taste would not be one-third of the lemonade. He would be encountering a true sample of all that the punchbowl contained—the fulness of the lemonade, not one of its ingredients. One could say, "if you have tasted this glass, you have tasted the whole punchbowl."

Now, if we can imagine this ocean of lemonade being alive and having personality, then the smaller vessel drawn off the larger supply would also have personality, and would be the offspring (one might say, "the son") of the punchbowl.

Thus the vessel of lemonade would simultaneously, in one sense, be sent from the larger punchbowl as the offspring and representative of its source, and, in another sense, its contents would be indistinguishable from the contents of the larger supply. Now, if the whole quantity of lemonade were, in our illustration, God, referred to by Christ as "the Father," and if the sample scooped into a glass were the man Jesus, then we could say, "All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him" and He could say "If you have encountered me, you have encountered the Father." He could also say, "The Father (meaning the great punchbowl full of lemonade) is greater than I"—because all of those statements would be quite literally true. Then, if the glass were shattered and the lemonade spilled (analogous to the death of Jesus), one could say that it truly was the lemonade (or God) that was spilled, though the infinite supply of lemonade (or God), from which He was sent, remains unharmed in the punchbowl.

I have no idea if this illustration corresponds in any measure to the true nature of the Godhead, so don't put much trust in it as an explanation. However, it is helpful to me, in trying to grasp the simultaneous deity and subordination of Christ.

[steve]

Disregard this post. It was a duplicate of the previous one. I don't know how to delete it, so I just replaced its contents with this notice.

[Allyn]

The vessel, as you called it, contains the fullness of God. That vessel is the fleshly body containing the lemonade dipped out fullness of Col. 2:9? Would it be proper, in consideration of your illustration to say that Christ in flesh is as to lemonade in a vessel dipped out of the greater punchbowl?

[steve]

I am not sure.

[Paidion]

Your analytic acquaintance is correct, if the two passages read as you have quoted them.
However, it is not at all certain that the original manuscript read "God was manifest in the flesh". Indeed it is more likely the manuscript read "... who was manifest in the flesh".

The difference in the Greek rests in the presence of absence of two Greek letters. This is how those two letters appeared in early manuscripts:



The following two letters appear in all manuscripts of I Timothy 3:16, and these two placed together as follows, form a word which means "which" or "who" or in some contexts "he":



Put all four together, and you get "theos", the Greek word for "God":



In Sinaiticus, as well as in Ephraemi Rescriptus, clearly only the two letters were written in the orginal hand, and thus "who" or "he" would be the translation. Also in Alexandrinus, it seems that only these two letters were written in the original hand, and the "theta" and the "epsilon" appear to have been added, but the state of preservation of the manuscript makes complete verification impossible.

So the stance that the phrase should read "God was manifest in the flesh" rests on shaky ground indeed. If the more probable "He was manifest in the flesh" is accepted, the problem of your analytical acquaintance disappears.

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. I Timothy 3:16 RSV

[TK]

paidion-- are those pictures of your greek scrabble tiles?

man- i wish i was cool enough to play scrabble in greek!

TK

[Paidion]

For years, I have been particularly interested in the matter of Deity (or “Godhead” if you insist, although I think that term is misleading in that it suggests a compound God). I would like to comment on Steve’s post, not to discredit it, but to add a number of facts which may clarify the matter.

First (a mere preliminary matter), some will complain that the Bible never uses the phrase or title "God the Son." This is a semantic issue, and does not touch upon the substance of the explanation. That Jesus is called "the Son" and also "God" at least opens the possibility of adopting the term "God the Son." Furthermore, we have a close proximity of the expression in John 1:18 (Alexandrian Text): "God only-begotten." The term "only-begotten" —monogenés—is probably better translated "unique" or "one and only"—but the adjective always modifies the word "Son" whenever referring to Jesus, and is used substantively, as the equivalent of "son," in Hebrews 11:17. If so, then the phrase, "God the monogenés" would be mighty close in meaning to the phrase "God the Son."

I am not convinced that the absence of the expressions “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” is merely a semantic issue. I think the absence of such terms reflects the early Christian non-Trinitarian understanding of Deity. When Steve mentioned “God the only-begotten” of John 1:18 being the “Alexandrian Text”, I wonder whether he had intended to write “Sinaitic Text” instead. For Alexandrinus has “the only-begotten son” as per Authorized Version et al. Furthermore, the word order is identical in both Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus:


Alexandrinus ----- ὁ μονογενης ὑιος (the only-begotten son)

Sinaiticus -------- μονογενης θεος (only-begotten God)

Fortunately, two manuscripts prior to 300 A.D. contain John 1:18

Papyrus 66, dated about the middle of the second century (around 150 A.D.) has “μονογενης θεος” .

Papyrus 75, dated in the late second century (perhaps around 180 A.D.) has “ὁ μονογενης θεος”. Thus the translation of this is clearly “the only begotten God”.

Sinaiticus lacks the article ὁ (the). This may not be significant. Lacking the article does not indicate that “μονογενης” is used substantively unless there is no noun for it to modify. But the fact that the adjective immediately precedes “θεος” is rather strong grammatical evidence that it modifies “θεος”, and thus is used attributively.

There are many in our day who hold the view that “μονογενης” is “better translated ‘unique’ or ‘one and only” as Steve has asserted. This seems to be an attempt to make the expression consistent with Trinitarianism since the early Christian teaching that the Logos was begotten as the first act of God before all ages indicates that the Son had a beginning. The early Christian writers all understood the expression as “only begotten Son” or “only generated Son” or “only produced Son”. Many of them contrasted the Father with the Son in this context by stating that the Father was “unbegotten”. But if the word means “unique” as per modernity, then surely the Father is unique, too, and would not be termed “non-unique” by the early writers.

There is disagreement concerning the origin of the root of “μονογενης”. Some, like myself, think the root is derived from the verb “γενναω” (to beget, to generate, to produce). If that is the case, then “the only begotten Son” or “the only generated Son” or “the only produced Son” would clearly be the correct translation.

According to the Online Bible Greek Lexicon as well as Strong’s Greek, the root is derived from the verb “γινομαι” (to become, to come into being). This is also consistent with the early Christian understanding. For if “ὁ μονογενης ὑιος” means “the only Son to come into being”, then the Son clearly had a beginning.

However, the NAS Greek as well as Abbott-Smith’s Greek Lexicon affirm that the root is “γενος”. This Geek word means can mean “offspring” as in Revelation 22:16

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

So in this case, ““ὁ μονογενης ὑιος” would mean “the only offspring Son”, that is, the Son would be the only offspring of the Father ----- still the classic meaning.

So what is the origin of the modern meaning “unique” or “one and only”? The fact is that “γενος” not only means “offspring” but also means “kind” or “type”. For examples:
Matthew 13:47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind.
1 Corinthians 14:10 There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.

So if “γενος” is the root of “μονογενης” and if it sometimes means “kind” or “type”, we could infer that “μονογενης” means “only kind” or “unique”. However, I think this is a desparate attempt to save the Trinity. I doubt that the word EVER means “only kind” or “unique” --- certainly not in Rev 22:16. Clearly Jesus does not say “I am the Root and the Unique of David”. David had many other descendants.

The early Christian writers contrasted the fact that God is unbegotten with the fact that His Son was begotten before all ages as an act of God:


But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before the ages, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. Ignatius to the Trallians (long) Ch 7.

A fascinating passage indeed! The writer speaks of two Physicians --- the Father, the only true God, the unbegotten God, and The Lord our God, Jesus the Messiah, the only-begotten Son [begotten] before the ages. He is able to call both the Father and the Son “God” and yet he distinguishes between the Father as unbegotten and the Son as having been begotten before the ages. Also he calls the first of the Physicians "the only true God", implying that the second Physician, although He is God, is not "true God".

Unfortunately it is thought that Ignatius’ writings were heavily interpolated by later writers. There are frequent references in them to Christ as “God”. This was not a common way of speaking of Him in that era.

Justin Martyr enlarged on the word “only-begotten” by indicating that He had been begotten by the Father and afterwards became man:

For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho Ch. 105

[darinhouston]

I tend to think of Jesus, the man, as having been begotten upon His birth, but the Word which was incarnate in the man to not have been begotten at all. I also tend to think the confusion is because of the forced trinitarian identity between Jesus and the Word. Like Paidion, I also don't like the compound view of God -- I know it's not orthodox, but I prefer to think of God as having different aspects which manifest in different ways -- there's a Word aspect that in some respects is unified with the Father aspect, but somehow can be manifested (perhaps along with the spirit aspect) in things like Christophonies, and the spirit aspect that could be manifested in the pillar of fire, our Comforter, etc. Coming into "being" has no meaning without the material universe, so eternally having come into "being" is kind of nonsensical, I think. I've mentioned this before, but I just don't think we have the faculty to undertand "existence" outside our material space-time universe. For us, things can't be unified and separated at the same time, but that's because we exist in our humanity in the dimensional realities of space-time.

[Jill]

.