Date: Fri Mar 21 1997 - 12:04:13 EST
>> The Son is described as MONOGONHS
>> *before* God sent him into the world to be born as flesh.
>> 1 John 4:9 hOTI hUION AUTOU TON MONOGENH APESTALKEN
>> hO QEOS EIS TON KOSMON
>> NASB 1 John 4:9 By this the love of God
>> was manifested in us, that God has sent
>> His only begotten Son into the world so
>> that we might live through Him.
> Where does the Greek in
>1John4:9 state MONOGENES *before* being sent ?
>I suggest (please note that this is just my *suggestion*)
>that the verse simply states...
>1. God has sent (at of the time of John's writing - Jesus had
>already come, had already died and had already been resurrected).
>2. His only begotten Son into the world (this Son who could have
>been begotten at his human birth, or he could have been begotten
>10 million years before, or he could have been begotten from eternity
>past. Unfortunately this verse just doesn't state *when* the
>begetting took place).
I must admit that this topic is not a forte of mine as is true of some others on
the list, but I do have a thought that I will pose as 'for sake of argument.' We
have the John 1:18 MONOGENHS QEOS, which as I understand them, most in the
scholarly community agree is a pre-flesh reference. I would agree with them for
the following reason. Since MONOGENHS here is an adjectival modifier (Louw-Nida,
Carl Conrad Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:26:47, and others), I take this to mean in this
context that Jesus is MONOGENHS *as* QEOS. This would strongly suggest he was
MONOGENHS before the flesh-becoming event in v.14. Thus, the arguable temporal
ambiguity of when Jesus was MONOGENHS appears to be removed considering the John
>> He noted that 'the
>> relationship between God and his Son is not *compared* to that of a
>> Father and MONOGENHS, it *is* the relationship.' (emphasis mine).
>Thank you for this... it illustrates my point perfectly.
Well, it is refreshing to find agreement at times and I enjoyed the repartee
with you. Of course, one could argue that MONOGENHS is not an either/or
proposition that it means unique or only-begotten. One could argue for both.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:10 EDT