chapter 1

The Mystery Demystified

Chapter Two

Did God Have A Son to Give ?

Many Christians today claim that Jesus was not the Son of God until he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, or until He was resurrected after His crucifixion (Rom. 1:4).

Does this claim bear the test of close investigation? Is this conclusion a reasonable one in light of all the facts? Jesus, as well as the entire New Testament reveals that God's love was supremely manifested when He gave His “only begotten Son” for men.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

Let us pause to think about this. God wants men to appreciate how much He loves them. His whole purpose from the beginning of the world has been to reveal the degree of His love for mankind. When He finally unveiled the fullness of His love in all its splendor for the universe to see, it was in the act of sending someone to earth to die for men. In this action of sending this person, God revealed His love in a way that it had never been seen before and would never again be equaled in all eternity.

A Vital Question

There are two vital questions which we need to ask ourselves. the first one is, who was this person that God sent? This question is critical because if the sending of this person is the key factor in the revelation of God's love, then it must be clear that the key question is, “What was the relationship between this person and God?”

Let me illustrate my point. If John 3:16 had read, “God so loved the world that He gave an angel whom He created….” or, “God so loved the world that He gave His friend….” Would the action really have impressed us with the fact that God's love for us is very great? Men would have understood if God had claimed to have given an angel. We would have comprehended it if God had claimed to have given His friend. But would this really have revealed God's love for man? The plain fact is, God's consistent testimony is that He gave His SON . In the very words of that Son, “His only begotten Son.” How great is God's love for us? The answer to that question pivots around the issue of who Jesus really was. Only as we can discern the true identity of Christ can we appreciate the enormity of the sacrifice which God made for man, and therefore the magnitude of His love for us.

A relevant question is, “why does the Bible call Jesus the “Son of God.” Is this term one that was coined by the gospel writers, was it a figurative term, was it a title like the term “prophet (as some have suggested)?” The plain fact of the matter is that God Himself in the presence of a multitude of people proclaimed, “This is my beloved Son (Matt. 3:17).” Again, Jesus Himself over and over declared that He was the SON of God, and more than that, the “only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:16) The testimony of these two Beings none dare contradict, or ascribe to tradition or custom or misunderstanding. Surely, God knew the identity of Jesus and Jesus Himself must have known His own identity. Let us then make note of the fact that in seeking to convey to human minds the relationship between God and Jesus, both Jesus and God have used the word “Son” and “Father”. Any human being therefore is guilty of the greatest presumption if he concludes that Jesus is anyone other than the Son of God.

Did Jesus Know His Own Identity?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

The truth expressed in these few lines is so profound, thrilling and uplifting that it will serve as the basis for the research and study of our entire world for a hundred million years. Simply stated, easily read, but vast and comprehensive in its scope, it encompasses the most precious truths ever revealed to the universe!

• God's love for unlovely sinners.

• The unfathomable depths of that love.

• The infinite value of the gift which He gave.

• The simplicity and completeness of the salvation provided.

It seems incredible that a truth so simply and clearly stated, and at the same time so critical to man's recovery from the consequences and penalty of sin should be so desperately and wholeheartedly attacked by men who claim to be believers in the Scriptures. I am frequently amazed at the lengths to which men will go and the devices they will utilize in their attempts to destroy these truths so unmistakably stated in this precious verse.

One man confidently affirms: “Well, you see, the Greek word from which we get the word “begotten” is “monogenes,” and it does not really mean, “only begotten,” it means “unique.”

Another “theologian” confidently asserts, “Jesus was not the Son of God before he came to this earth. You see, He was not begotten until He was born in Bethlehem.”

Still another of these learned men scoffs at the ignorance of those of us who believe that Jesus was actually the literal Son of God who proceeded from the Father in the days before time began. “What you need to understand,” he says, “is the style of the Bible writers. The term ‘son of God' was a Hebrew term which was applied by the disciples to Jesus because in their eyes, He was somebody special.”

And so they heap up theory upon theory, all of which are aimed at destroying the simple truth that Jesus was, and is, the Son of God, begotten of the Father from the days of eternity. It is not surprising that the enemy of truth should try with all his might to destroy or obscure this truth. If he has his way, men will never understand the love of the Father for mankind, for this is the truth which will free us from the bondage of sin. This is the truth which is the central theme of study of the entire universe.

The title, “only begotten Son,” was not a title imposed upon Jesus, or chosen by the disciples. If we accept the scriptures as being factual and accurate, then it was Jesus Himself who first referred to Himself as God's “only begotten Son (John 3:16).” We may say that the disciples had confused ideas about who Jesus was, at first. Perhaps some may have thought He was a great prophet. Others, maybe, that He was Elijah returned. Most, perhaps, believed that He was the Messiah (but not necessarily a divine being). But what about Jesus? Did He know His own identity? When He referred to Himself as God's “Only Begotten Son,” what was He trying to do? Why did He use those words? Was He trying to confuse Nicodemus or to enlighten him? What was the message which He was trying to get across to Nicodemus?

Don't you see that He was trying to get Nicodemus to appreciate the degree of God's love? In essence, he was saying, “Nicodemus, do you know how much God loves men? he loves them so much that he was willing to give His ONLY BEGOTTEN SON!” Can you see how critical it is that we understand the meaning of that term, “only begotten Son?” It is only as we understand it that we can begin to comprehend how much God loves us.

In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9)

MONOGENES

The term, Only begotten is a translation of the Greek word “MONOGENES”. This Greek word monogenes means: “only born, ie. sole - only (begotten child).” This word comes from two greek words, m onos and g enos .

m onos means: sole, or single; alone, only.

Genos means: kin, offspring, stock, generation

What does this word really mean? A literal translation of the word obviously means only offspring. This word is used a total of nine (9) times in the Bible. Five times, it applies to Jesus and is translated as “only begotten.” Below, we see how it is used in the other four instances:

Luke 7:12 - “Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold there was a dead man carried out, the only son ( monogenes ) of his mother and she was a widow.”

Luke 8:42 - “For he had one only ( monogenes ) daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying.

Luke 9:38 - “And behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech Thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child (monogenes).

We will come to the other reference in a moment. But first of all we must ask in the name of reason and good sense, what is the meaning of the word, monogenes in the scriptures quoted above? What are we expected to understand from the use of the word? Obviously, in each instance we are being told that this was the ONLY child BORN to that particular parent. There is really very little room for misunderstanding what the word means as it is used in the scriptures. It means, The only one born of . Did it mean that in these cases the child in question was a unique child?

However, there is one other place in which the word is used and this is with reference to Abraham's son Isaac.

Heb.11:17 - “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son (monogenes).”

We deal with this reference separately, because in this case, Isaac was not actually the only son born to Abraham. Abraham had another son, Ishmael, who had been born before Isaac. Why then, is Isaac called the only begotten son of Abraham? It is not difficult to see why. Ishmael was not the son of Sarah, Abraham's legitimate wife. The scriptures make it plain that God's plan was for the son of Abraham to be the offspring of both Abraham and Sarah, therefore God did not accept Ishmael as Abraham's son. His word to Abraham was, “cast out the bondwoman and her son (Gal.4:30).” When God told Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice on mount Moriah, He stated in carefully chosen words, “ take now thy son, THINE ONLY SON whom thou lovest...” (Gen.22:2)

In spite of this, some have pounced triumphantly on this verse in Hebrews 11:17 and tried to use it as a key for interpreting monogenes to mean something other than to be born of . They state that in the case of Isaac, it simply meant that he had a special unique place in the affections of Abraham, and therefore, that is what it means when referring to the relationship between God and Jesus. But I ask in the name of reason, was not Isaac literally the Son of Abraham by birth?

Even if it were true that this is the way the word is used in the single case of the relationship between Isaac and Abraham, it is nevertheless clear that in the majority of instances, this is not its meaning. In seeking to decide on the meaning of any word, we must look at the way the word is used in the majority of cases and in this way come to a reasonable conclusion as to the meaning of the word, bearing in mind the context in which it is used. When we apply these rules to monogenes , its meaning is plain. It is only a determined effort to destroy the truth of the literal Sonship of Jesus Christ which makes scholars, contrary to all the rules of proper scholarship, define the word monogenes as, unique.

Some have suggested that God would have needed a wife to bring forth a literal son. But this suggestion is childish and disrespectful. Even the physical creation teaches us that there are organisms such as amoeba which reproduce without the need of a sexual partner. We need only accept the word of God, not question the hows and wherefores. God was the first Father in the universe. When He gave man the ability to reproduce, He gave him a precious gift, which He had not given to angels. It was just one way in which man was a little more like God.

Did God merely use human terminology when He referred to Jesus as His “beloved Son,” so that we could understand how He feels about Jesus? Was this an attempt on the part of God to mislead us, or to enlighten us? Does God want us to believe something is so, even though it isn't? If God wanted us to think of Jesus as His Son, why should we think of Him as being God Himself? Are we wiser than God? When God says, “this is my beloved Son,” how can we be so presumptuous as to say, “He was not really God's Son. He was God Himself!!” Let us be certain of this: God has given us the information which we need and what He tells us is what He expects us to believe and to receive. Furthermore, the only safety in this world lies in believing and receiving that word.

The second vital question which we must ask is, when did Jesus become the Son of God? This question is a critical one because God's love for us is revealed in the gift of His Son. Yet, God could not have loved Christ as a Son until He became His Son. Does this sound logical? God's love for His Son must be measured from the time when He had a Son. If Jesus had existed before He became God's Son, then God may have loved Him as a brother, as a friend, may even have been said to love Himself, if as some say, Jesus was God Himself. However, He could not have loved Him as His Son until He became His Son.

When did Jesus become the Son of God? Strenuous efforts have been made to prove that God never had a Son before Jesus came to earth. Such efforts have come from all quarters, but all of them fail in the light of the plain simple word of God. Was there a time when God said, “Son, you may go?” 1 John 4:9 says that God sent His only begotten Son into the world. When did this happen? Was it before Jesus came into the world or was it after He came into the world? Did God first send Jesus into the world and then after His arrival here, say, “Son, you may go into the world?” These questions may seem ridiculous but they need to be asked in order that it may become clear how unreasonable is the position that Jesus never became God's Son until after He had come into the world. Basic logic should tell us that if God sent His Son into the world (John 3:17; 1 John 4:9) then He must have had a Son to send (Mark 12:6). He did not send Himself to become His Son, He did not send His friend to become His Son, He did not send a part of Himself to become His Son. At the moment when Jesus was sent, He was already the Son of God.

To believe that Jesus was not God's Son until He was conceived in Mary's womb would present the ridiculous idea that Jesus arrived before He was sent. Or that God sent His Son before He had a Son.

It is painful to see Christian men and women twisting the word of God in an attempt to obscure and destroy this simple truth which is so plainly taught in the Bible.

Testimony of The Old Testament

Though the testimony of the Old Testament is not as clear as that of the New, there are several verses in the Old Testament which clearly reveal the truth that God had a Son long before Jesus ever came to the earth.

“Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?” (Prov 30:4)

Which two beings was this verse speaking of? One of them is clearly the Creator of all things the one who “bound the waters in a garment” and “established all the ends of the earth.” However, there is another person mentioned. Here long before Christ was born in Bethlehem the question is asked, “what is His Son's name?” If God did not have a Son at that time what is the meaning of the question?

Again when we look at Proverbs 8:22-31 it is difficult for us to misunderstand the meaning of the passage. The passage says:

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth ... Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth ... When he prepared the heavens, I was there ... when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. (Prov 8:22-31)

Of whom is this passage speaking? The first few verses of the chapter indicate that it is speaking of “wisdom.” However, as often happens with Old Testament prophetic or poetic passages the subject changes from a general application to specific application to someone in particular. It is clear that these verses must be speaking of a person rather than the abstract quality of wisdom because it states that “I was brought forth” (v 24, 25). If we were to conclude that this refers to the quality of wisdom, then we would also have to conclude that there was a time, before God brought forth wisdom when wisdom did not exist and that therefore at one point, God was not wise. This person mentioned in verses 22-31 has some very particular specifications which could apply to only one Being in the universe. Let us look at some of these specifications:

1. The person was “ brought forth ” (born, begotten. v 24, 25) The term “brought forth” is translated as “ given birth ” in the NIV and also in the BBE (Bible in basic English). In the NLT and the NJB as “ I was born .” Nearly every other version translates it as “brought forth.”

2. the person was “set up”(born) before anything was created. A period referred to as “ everlasting ” (v 23)

3. The person was present during all the creative acts of God (v 27-29)

4. The companionship of this person with God was constant and brought “ delight ” to God (v 30)

Who is it that the Bible says was “begotten” by God (John 3:16) from the days of “everlasting” (Micah 5:2) Who was present and active during the creation of the entire universe (Eph 3:9; Gen 1:26). And who brought delight to the heart of God (Matt 3:17)? Only one Being in the entire universe fits the description. This passage is clearly referring to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, according to 1 Cor 1:24 is the wisdom of God.

Those who deny that Jesus is truly the Son of God have two problems with this passage. Firstly, they see clearly that it speaks of a starting point for Christ. A time when He was “brought forth.” Regardless of the fact that this time is so far back in eternity as to be referred to as “everlasting,” they have a problem because they feel that Jesus is God Himself and as such could not have had a beginning. Secondly, they feel that the term “brought forth” implies creation and of course, if Jesus was created then He could not have been a divine being and it would not have been possible for Him to have paid the price for man's redemption.

Born or Created?

Yet, the Scriptures are greater than the opinions, the fears, the misconceptions and the biases of men. Accepting what the Scriptures say as they simply read would bring understanding and would clear up the difficulties. Let us examine the second objection first. Are we suggesting that Jesus was CREATED if we accept that He was BORN of God? Let us be reasonable. Is there anywhere in the Bible where “born” means “created” or vice versa? This matter is very simple. Creation has to do with forming, or bringing something into existence using materials which are not a part of myself or without the use of pre-existing materials. Begetting or the birth process is entirely different. In birth, the new entity was once a part of the original and is composed of the same substance and possesses the same qualities as the original. The new entity may even be said to have existed before he was born in the sense that his life was already present in his parent's life (Heb 7:9,10). The Biblical testimony everywhere concerning Christ is that He was born of God , not created by God.

The other objection has to do with the question, could Christ truly be God if He had a beginning? Well, first of all Jesus could never be God (Himself). There is only one Being in the Bible who bears the title “God” and this is the Father (John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Rev 21:22). However, the relevant question is, could Jesus be a divine being, could He possess the qualities of God if He had a beginning?

When a child is born, what qualities is he born with? Apart from the fact that his development is not complete, does he come short of his parents in any way? Obviously, if Jesus was BORN , BEGOTTEN , BROUGHT FORTH by God, then He must possess ALL the qualities of God! It is evident that He is not inferior to God in any way but possesses in His nature every attribute which by nature belongs to God. How does the fact that He had a beginning trillions of years ago negate His divinity? This is like saying that because a human son is not as old his father, he is not as human as his father! The key question, is whether Jesus was BORN or CREATED . Jehovah's Witnesses claim that He was created. Trinitarians say He was neither born nor created. The Bible however, teaches that He was begotten of God way back in the days of “everlasting”. This is the only conclusion which fits all the facts of Scripture.

Enlightened or Confused

Many and varied are the ways in which the enemy of all truth has sought to obliterate this truth. Another group of Christians, zealous for the traditions of past centuries have speculated (and pushed these speculations on others) that Jesus, who was God Himself , decided billions of years ago to act in the role of a son, while God Himself (another one) would act in the role of a Father. At the same time God Himself (still another one!) would act in the role of Holy Spirit. This decision was taken by God Himself who was not three Gods, but one God acting in three roles!!

Unpopular Truth

Why is the devil so fiercely opposed to the truth that Jesus is the true Son of God? It is not difficult to find the answer to this question. The Bible declares that God's love is revealed in the fact that God gave His Son to die for mankind (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9,10). How can we understand and appreciate the wonder of that love if we fail to discern the identity of the One who was sent? If we fail to grasp the value of the gift that was given and what it cost God to give it? It is only as we understand Christ's identity that we shall love God as we should (1 John 4:19). Therefore our love for God and our victory over sin are linked to the truth that Jesus is the Son of God. “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:5)?” No wonder the devil hates this truth!

What is difficult to understand is why Christians should so determinedly oppose the plainest statements of the word of God. Why should persons who claim to love God and to desire His glory so stubbornly oppose the one truth which reveals the love of God more fully than anything else in the universe? This truly is a mystery almost as great as the so-called Trinity!

Hundreds of years ago during the fourth century AD the spirit of compromise, the desire for worldly popularity combined with the influence of paganism, brought the doctrine of the trinity into the Christian faith. Since that time it has become so deeply ingrained into the traditions of Christendom that it has become the foundation doctrine of most Christian denominations and it is considered blasphemy to speak against it. But why do Christian men and women cling so tenaciously to the error? Why, in the light of the plain statements of Scripture, do they continue to embrace a Trinitarian God? The answer is popularity. No church will be accepted today (this has been true for the past 1500 years) unless it professes belief in the trinity. A denial of the trinity will result in a church instantly receiving the label of CULT . Therefore, this doctrine which is entirely founded upon the traditions of men rather than the word of God has risen to such universal prominence that when one simply expresses the biblical truth that Jesus is the Son of God, he is accused of heresy.

A friend of mine sat in church one day during a discussion on the Trinity. Curious, she asked the question, “was Jesus the Son of God?” The immediate response was, “yes, He was.” But then she continued by saying, “what I mean is, was He truly the actual Son of God?” There was a moment of hesitation and then the answer came, “no, He was not.” My friend was stunned. Here, in her own church she was hearing the plain truth of God's word blatantly denied. Not surprisingly it was just a matter of a few weeks before she stopped attending that church.

The popular churches of today can never accept that Jesus was the true Son of God. Neither can those independent ministries which are seeking acceptance. In order to be even given a hearing, to be even considered respectable one must first embrace the idol trinity. Therefore many groups professedly seeking reformation will not accept the truth of the Father and the Son because to do so would result in the loss of what meager influence they have with the established churches. In the pitiful hope that they will someday be recognized and gain a big name for themselves, they walk the well-trammeled road of tradition, in the name of reformation.

John's Style?

Of all the disciples of Jesus, John is the one who dwells most of all on the theme of the sonship of Jesus. In fact, he is the only one of the Bible writers who refers to Jesus as God's “only begotten Son.”

Trinitarians pounce upon this fact and declare that the use of this phrase was just a quirk of John's style of writing. Is this true? Was it merely John's style of writing that gave Jesus the title, “Only begotten Son,” or was John an accurate, truthful, honest Christian who wrote straight facts?

An examination of the circumstances which surrounded the writing of John's letters, his gospel and the book of Revelation, makes it very clear why John had this emphasis in his writings.

It is common knowledge that John was the last of the apostles to die, living until somewhere between the years A.D. 95 - 100. He was also the last of the Bible writers, with his books being the last writings added to the biblical canon. It is believed that Revelation (written A.D. 95) was the first of his writings (of those included in the Bible) being followed by his epistles and the gospel which bears his name.

The epistles of John, written after all the other apostles were dead, reveal that by the time these letters were written, certain deadly influences were beginning to rear their heads in the church. Several references in the epistles of John make it clear that some were beginning to propagate heresies of the most insidious nature. (1 John 2:18)

In his first epistle, John emphatically states, several times, that Jesus is the Son of God. Here he describes Him as the, “only begotten Son.” What was the reason for the emphasis? Was there a reason why he chose to describe Jesus in such a particular way?

Chapter 2: 22,23, Makes it clear that there were certain people arising in the Christian church who were beginning to teach that Jesus was not the actual Son of God in the truest sense of the word “Son” (the first Trinitarians?). John, the last of the apostles, one of the twelve specially chosen by Jesus to be His special witnesses, one who had “heard, … seen with our eyes, … looked upon, and …handled, of the Word of life”(1 John 1:1) found it necessary to repudiate this dangerous false teaching, in clear and unmistakable language. Those who taught this heresy possessed the “Spirit of Antichrist.” Emphatically, he stated that, Jesus was not only “God's Son,” He was God's “only BEGOTTEN Son (1 John 4:9).” This was not an idea which John fabricated, but was a truth which he had heard himself from the lips of the Master (John 3:16).

Clearly, he makes it known that this truth is the central pillar which is the basis of all genuine Christian experience. Without this truth, we cannot overcome the world (1 John 5:5). Confession of this truth that Jesus is God's Son, is an indicator that we are abiding in God (1 John 4:15) and through understanding the truth of the relationship between God and His Son, we may appreciate the extent of God's love for us (1 John 4:9).

Why is it that none of the other Bible writers had made the same emphasis? The answer is simple. Note John's words:

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2:18)”

It is clear that the denial that Jesus was God's Son was a teaching that had not been around before the time of John's writing. No Christian had ever questioned the fact that Jesus was the Son of God, begotten of the Father, changed into flesh and sent into the world. But now that John was old, the only apostle left alive, the devil focused his attack upon the most critical point of Christian faith: the doctrine of the love of God, revealed in the gift of His Son.

The Bible has not been warped or distorted by the literary style, or idiomatic expressions of its writers. So called “scholars” would have us believe that the plain, simple words of the Bible are not to be comprehended, believed and accepted until they have first been interpreted by the “men of learning.” This fallacy has always been and always will be rejected by those who believe in a sovereign God. One who intends that His word shall be read, understood and obeyed, and who therefore has made it simple enough for even a child, guided by His spirit, to understand.