In other words: from aegis to yevery

• aegis, noun. Classical Mythology. The shield or breastplate of Zeus or Athena, bearing at its center the head of the Gorgon. Also protection, support, sponsorship, auspices.
• blockbuster, noun. A film or book which is highly popular and commercially successful; a film or book which sustains widespread popularity and achieves enormous sales.
• bookish, adjective. Characterized by, consisting of, or derived from books; devoted to books; booky.
• futurist, noun. Theology. A person who believes that biblical prophecies, esp. in the Apocalypse/ Revelation, will be fulfilled in the future.
• historicist, noun and adjective. Theology. A person who believes that biblical prophecies, esp. those in the Apocalypse/ Revelation, are being fulfilled throughout the course of history.
• imberb, adjective. Beardless.
• informator choristarum, noun. A choirmaster, a musical director. Now historical except as the title of the director of the choir of Magdalen College, Oxford.
• mauvais quart d’heure, noun. A short period of time which is embarrassing and unnerving; a brief but unpleasant experience. French, bad quarter of an hour.
• paralogism, noun. A piece of false or erroneous reasoning, especially one which the reasoner is unconscious of or believes to be logical (as distinct from a sophism, which is intended to deceive); an illogical argument, a fallacy.
• pogonotrophy, noun. The act of cultivating, or growing and grooming, a mustache, beard, sideburns or other facial hair.
• presentist, noun. Theology. A person who believes that biblical prophecies, esp. in the Apocalypse/ Revelation, are now being fulfilled.
• preterist, noun. Theology. A person who believes that biblical prophecies, esp. in the Apocalypse/ Revelation,  have already been fulfilled.
• religieuse, noun. A woman bound by religious vows, or devoted to a religious life; a nun.
• resiliating, adjective. That resumes or causes to resume a former shape or position.
• schlockbuster, noun. A film or book which is highly popular or commercially successful but is regarded as having no artistic merit. Takeoff of blockbuster.
• sophism, noun. A clever but false or erroneous reasoning, especially one used deliberately to deceive (as distinct from a paralogism, which is not intended to deceive).
• summa rerum, noun. The highest public interest; the public good (cf. the sum of things). Latin, total + of things or affairs.
• swellegant, adjective. Wonderfully stylish, elegant, or fashionable. Swell + Elegant.
• swinehood, noun. Pigs collectively. Also figurative: coarse, degraded, or uncivilized people considered collectively.
• trainspotting, noun. The hobby or activity of observing trains and recording railway locomotive numbers, sometimes with other details.
• yevery, adjective. Very hungry; ravenous.

God forbid

“God forbid” that we should say “God forbid,” according to some of the more virulent critics of the King James Version of the Bible. I’m shocked (shocked, I say) at how far some take this. An NIV-promoting KJV-hating debater recently told me that “God forbid” is swearing, taking the Lord’s name in vain. It is not clear how much of this was sincere and how much is agitation, defamation, and deflection. Mostly the latter, I think.

For all practical purposes, the King James Version is the Bible smeared with the accusation of “odious expression” and “inaccurate translation” – even though other English Bibles from the 14th century to the 21st century use “God forbid.” Most all (if not all) pre-1611 Bibles, including Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, the Great Bible, Bishops, and Geneva, contain the expression.[i] The English Revised Version (1881/1885) and the American Standard Version (1901) continued the practice.

Modern Bibles include it. The Common English Bible (2011) uses “God forbid” five times. The International Standard Version (2014), NET Bible (1996/2017), New International Version 2011, New Revised Standard Version (1989), and Revised Standard Version (1946/1971) use it twice.[ii] The Lexham English Bible (2012), New American Standard Bible (1960/1995), New King James Version (1982), and New Living Translation (1996/2015) use it once.[iii] Apparently, translators have not gotten the memo to stop cursing!

Notice again – English Bibles from the 14th century to the 21st century use this expression. This is a precedent set by Wycliffe and continued to the present. None of this matters when the game is to use “God forbid” as a “trashing tool” against the King James Bible.

First, I will only briefly consider the idea that “God forbid” is swearing. Bible translators do not view it that way. I found little to indicate hardly anyone views it that way.[iv] Even KJV critic Doug Kutilek does not mention it in “God Forbid!” A Study in Bible Translation Methodology. This seems to be mostly a contrived objection used as cannon fodder against the King James Bible.

The second consideration is the equivalency of “God forbid” to the Greek words me genoito (μὴ γένοιτο, a negated “to be” verb) and the Hebrew chalilyah (חָלִילָה, far be it). The phrase “God forbid” occurs 24 times in the King James Bible – nine times in the Old Testament,[v] and fifteen times in the New Testament.[vi]

The Greek μὴ γένοιτο (me genoito, not be) is translated “God forbid” in these passages:

Luke 20:16; Romans 3:4; Romans 3:6; Romans 3:31; Romans 6:2; Romans 6:15; Romans 7:7; Romans 7:13; Romans 9:14; Romans 11:1; Romans 11:11; 1 Corinthians 6:15; Galatians 2:17; Galatians 3:21; Galatians 6:14.

The Hebrew חָלִילָה (chalilyah, far be it) is translated “God forbid” in these passages:

Genesis 44:7; Genesis 44:17; Joshua 22:29; Joshua 24:16;[vii] 1 Samuel 12:23; 1 Samuel 14:45; 1 Samuel 20:2; 1 Chronicles 11:19; Job 27:5.

The more controversial and most discussed passages seem to be those with the exclamatory use of me genoito by Paul in his writings. Perhaps the closest “literal” rendering of me genoito is “not be” or “not become,” expressed in English as “may it not be.” Here is a hint as to why translators, beginning with Wycliffe, preferred “God forbid.” “May it not be” is quite weak negation in English. Paul uses me genoito as a strong full stop negation. Translators looked for and found a stronger parallel for a strong expression – applying what some today would call “optimal equivalence,” translating a strong Greek negation with a strong parallel English negation rather than a more exacting word-to-word translation.[viii] With me genoito, Paul vehemently negates any possibility of the proposed question, and prohibits anyone inferring a wrong conclusion from his previous argument.[ix] In Is “God forbid” a “poor translation” in the King James Bible? Shawn Brasseaux explains, “When we pair the words ‘God’ and ‘forbid,’ we form the strongest negation possible in the English language.”

Dictionaries indicate that “God forbid” is an English idiom expressing a desire that something not happen,“may it not happen,” “perish the thought,” and so forth. It carries the same idea as me genoito. It can be found in use back in the 1200s. In a sense, it is an interjectory prayer that God prevent a happening. Considered as a prayer, God is the one whom a Christian would address.

The debate over “God forbid” exposes wide streams of hypocrisy. Those who advocate consistent dynamic equivalence translation find “God forbid” in the King James Bible and vociferously complain – not because they oppose dynamic equivalence, but because they oppose the King James Version of the Bible. Radical KJO-ists advocate consistent word-for-word translation to support the King James over modern Bibles – then turn tail and run to embrace dynamic equivalence when they find the words “God” and “forbid” are not found in the underlying text. Translating is more complicated than often explained and understood. Exact word-for-word translation, as some people falsely conceive it, is not found in any Bible translation. If it were exact, it would be no translation at all! However, formal equivalence approaches each word seriously to take what God said in the source language and express it in the receptor language.[x] Overall, the formal equivalence approach used by the translators of the King James Bible does just that. To charge these translators with not taking me genoito and “God forbid” seriously is beyond the pale, designed for heat and not truth.[xi]

---

[i] It is also found in the Catholic Douay-Rheims English translation.

[ii] The NRSV in 1 Chronicles 11:19 and Luke 20:16, but the RSV in Matthew 16:22 and Luke 20:16.

[iii] The New Matthew Bible (2016) uses “God forbid” additionally in Acts 10:14 and 11:8, where the King James Version has “not so.” The Greek there is medamos, which the Septuagint sometimes uses to translate the Hebrew chalilyah (for example, 1 Samuel 20:2).

[iv] A few probably sincerely do so. Nevertheless, it is mainly a debate tactic to most who bring it up.

[v] Three times the same word is translated “the Lord forbid” (1 Samuel 24:6; 1 Samuel 26:11; 1 Kings 21:3). It is also translated “far be it,” and so forth.

[vi] All but one of the New Testament occurrences (Luke 20:16) are found in the writings of Paul.

[vii] The Greek Septuagint (Old Testament) uses me genoito to translate chaliylah in Genesis 44:7, Genesis 44:17, Joshua 22:29, and Joshua 24:16.

[viii] Though he does not prefer “God forbid,” C. Michael Patton writes, “μὴ γένοιτο is a Greek idiom that should not be literally translated.” A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 2 of 4

[ix] In all cases except Galatians 6:14, Paul’s me genoito is associated with a question or questions.

[x] Formal equivalence translation seeks to give the meaning of the source language while reproducing as much as possible the formal structure of the original in the receptor language – sentence structure, verb tense, conjunctions, and so on.

[xi] As well as the translators of the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, Great Bible, Bishops, Geneva, English Revised Version, and the American Standard Version.

Indebted to the Radical Reformation

I stand indebted to the Radical Reformation in ways that cannot fully be calculated. Though Reformed in soteriology, I recognize that my decidedly Baptist ecclesiology has far more in common with the Anabaptists. I stand with the Anabaptists in their insistence on the baptism of believers only and the necessity of the personal confession of faith in Christ. I reject Calvin’s understanding of church and state and side without apology with those who died at the hands of those used the state as an instrument of the church, or the church as an instrument of the state. I stand with them on the sole final authority of Scripture, even when it means standing against the received tradition.

Albert Mohler in The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists: Restoring New Testament Christianity (Broadman & Holman, 2013)

I am the great complainer

Just getting around to complaining:

Daylight Savings Time is bi-annual psychological warfare of the United States government against its own people.

There.

A Tale of Texas, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• A Tale of Texas Crawfish -- “Across Texas, every crawfish chef and backyard boiler has a recipe. Most popular is the Cajun style, which calls for infusing boiled crawfish with peppery spices and serving them with boiled corn and potatoes.”
• Brothers, Preach Your Heart Out — No Matter How Few People Are in the Room -- “When we tie our value as preachers to the number of people we’re preaching to, we devalue the Christ we preach.”
• In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Schumer for ‘threatening’ comments -- “‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,’ Schumer said.”
• Is “God forbid” a “poor translation” in the King James Bible? -- “When we pair the words ‘God” and ‘forbid,’ we form the strongest negation possible in the English language.”
• Meat and Greet -- “On an overheated Saturday in early October, I drove Roy Perez, the venerable pitmaster at Kreuz Market in Lockhart, and Kreuz Market owner Keith Schmidt to Snow’s BBQ in Lexington.”
• School officials stifle students’ resistance to LGBTQ flag -- “Kaardal contends the incident will lead to a federal lawsuit with two types of claims, one being that the display of flags other than the national flag needs to be viewpoint neutral...And the second claim? ‘You can't suppress student petitions regarding school district policy...’”
• Sharpening My Knowledge -- “Chet learned a lot about barbed wire, which changed the frontier prairie forever, at the Devil’s Rope Museum in McLean.”
• The Conversation Behind the Conversation: How Ecclesiological Assumptions Shape Our Complementarianism -- “Behind many of our complementarian debates are significant differences about how we view the church...More to the point, faulty views of the church create complementarian chaos.”
• The Tail Trail: Where To Find the Best Crawfish -- “Co-op Country offers a bounty of mudbug options”
• Think Trump is ‘outrageous?’ He’s nothing compared to these past presidents -- “Unprecedented, unprecedented. Everything is unprecedented. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Except it pretty much has.”
• Understanding Jewish Gravestones -- “Others say the rocks were originally to mark the site of a corpse as a warning to passing Jewish priests against getting within 4 feet of a dead body, which would render them unholy.”

New Testament Quotations of the Old Testament

If we are generally familiar with the Old and New Testaments, we know that “it is written” references in the New Testament often are not literal word-for-word matches to the source in the Old Testament.

The entire Bible – from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 – is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). He breathed his word into Moses and John and everyone in between, so that the words are pure, accurate, inerrant, and authoritative. Therefore, any New Testament quotes of, references to, or allusions to the written Old Testament are inspired by God. For that reason, we should consider how God inspired men to quote, reference, and allude to his inspired words. Such has authority over our thoughts, opinions, explanations, and illustrations on the same (which thoughts and opinions we often have too much admiration for).

Electoral College

Last summer I addressed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an attempt to end around the Constitution. Another less radical attempt to overcome the state-focused nature of the U. S. Presidential Election and the Electoral College is proportionally-assigned electors.

Some folks think the States should assign electoral votes proportionately. This is a consistent position for those who think the president should be elected by national popular vote. If every state divvied out electoral votes according to a percentage of their popular vote, it could effectively elect the presidential in accordance with the national popular vote (and without a constitutional amendment). So far as I know, it is within each state’s right to do that if they so choose. At least a couple of states already have some kind of proportional system. However, my understanding of the concept of and reason for the Electoral College is that STATES rather than individuals elect Presidents. The winner of our state popular vote gets all 35 of the electoral votes. I have no feeling of disenfranchisement. Why? Because the concept of the Electoral College is that the STATE votes for the president. In Texas we decide by popular vote for whom the STATE will vote. Everyone in Texas who wants to vote gets their say, and the majority popular vote decides. I do not consider myself disenfranchised by the system we have in Texas – even though I have not voted for the winner of the state’s popular vote (the collector of all our electoral votes) in the past 30 years so.

A little history lesson
No presidents of the United States have ever been elected by national popular vote. All have been selected by the Electoral College, except two Presidential elections which were decided in the House of Representatives (1800 and 1824). In 1800 there was no popular vote; the state legislatures appointed their electors. Due to a tie, the selection was made by the House of Representatives. Five times candidates have won the national popular vote and lost the presidential election. In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote; neither he, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, nor William H. Crawford won a majority in the Electoral College, and the election was decided in favor of Adams in the House. In 1876 Samuel Tilden received the national popular vote, but lost to Rutherford B. Hayes. Likewise, in 1888 Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison), in 2000 Al Gore lost to George W. Bush, in 2016 Hillary Clinton lost to Donald J. Trump.

“Article II, Section 1. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...”

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.”

Monogenes, the Only Begotten

Last Monday I looked at “‘Begotten’ in Baptist Confessions.” In the background of this is a modern debate over the meaning of the Greek word monogenes. The popular and promoted view among scholars today is that it means “only” or “unique.” While I neither berate nor dismiss scholarship, the awakened mind must realize that they tend to “follow fads” and “ride bandwagons” just like the rest of us.

The Greek adjective monogenes (μονογενής) is found nine times in the New Testament (three in Luke’s gospel, 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; five in John’s writings, John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9; and once in Hebrews 11:17). Three times monogenes is translated “only. ”Six times monogenes is translated “only begotten.”[i] Here are the verses:

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 of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

Luke 8:42 – for he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

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.

John 1:14, 18 – And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth... No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3:16, 18 – 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...He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 John 4:9 – 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.

Hebrews 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,

For centuries, Christians understood monogenes to mean “only begotten.” Greek writers used the word with that obvious sense. The Latin translation of the Scriptures used a Latin word with that sense, and later the Luther Bible, the Spanish Reina-Valera, and English translations up into the last century used words with that corresponding meaning.[ii] That common practice began to change about the middle of the twentieth century, and has continued mostly unabated to the present.[iii] Greek scholars previously said that monogenes derived from “mono” (meaning one) and “gennao” (meaning beget). Greek scholars moved away from this idea to assert that monogenes comes from “mono” (meaning one) and “genos” (meaning kind). Under this idea, the support for monogenes meaning “only begotten” went to “only,” “one of its kind,” or “unique.”[iv] Most recent English Bible translations now use words in that range of meaning. Does might make right? Is the majority unimpeachable? Most agree that monogenes can mean “only.” The King James translators recognize that sense in the passages in Luke (see above). Some recent debaters have gone so far to claim that monogenes cannot mean “only begotten.” Others have argued that the “only begotten” sense is brought over in other languages from the Latin unigenitus.

It is without doubt that Latin had great influence on the English language, and that the Latin Bible had strong influence on early English Bibles. On the other hand, it is relatively easy to show that Greek speakers used the word monogenes with the sense begotten – before a Bible in Latin was in common use.[v] The influence is first Greek to Latin, before the Latin influenced other languages.

Early Christian writers who spoke the Greek language indulge in the “only begotten” use of monogenes. It is not necessary that one agree with all their theology in order to comprehend how they were using the word.[vi] Athanasius uncontrovertibly connects monogenes with birth and begetting, and ties monogenes with the Son’s generation from the Father. Note his Discourse 2 Against the Arians, written circa A D 360 (bold emphasis mine).

62. But if He is also called ‘First-born of the creation,’ still this is not as if He were levelled to the creatures, and only first of them in point of time (for how should that be, since He is ‘Only-begotten?’), but it is because of the Word’s condescension to the creatures, according to which He has become the ‘Brother’ of ‘many.’ For the term ‘Only-begotten’ is used where there are no brethren, but ‘First-born ‘ because of brethren. Accordingly it is nowhere written in the Scriptures, ‘the first-born of God,’ nor ‘the creature of God;’ but ‘Only-begotten’ and ‘Son’ and ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom,’ refer to Him as proper to the Father. Thus, ‘We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father John 1:14;’ and ‘God sent His Only-begotten Son 1 John 4:9’ and ‘O Lord, Your Word endures for ever ;’ and ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God;’ and ‘Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God 1 Corinthians 1:24;’ and ‘This is My beloved Son.’ and ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’But ‘first-born’ implied the descent to the creation; for of it has He been called first-born; and ‘He created’ implies His grace towards the works, for for them is He created. If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, ‘First-born’ needs some explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten. For the same cannot be both Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations;—that is, Only-begotten, because of His generation from the Father, as has been said; and First-born, because of His condescension to the creation and His making the many His brethren. Certainly, those two terms being inconsistent with each other, one should say that the attribute of being Only-begotten has justly the preference in the instance of the Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father. Moreover , as was before said, not in connection with any reason, but absolutely it is said of Him, ‘The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father John 1:18;’ but the word ‘First-born’ has again the creation as a reason in connection with it, which Paul proceeds to say, ‘for in Him all things were created Colossians 1:16.’ But if all the creatures were created in Him, He is other than the creatures, and is not a creature, but the Creator of the creatures.

From the same period as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of the “Son eternally begotten by an inscrutable and incomprehensive generation” in his Catechetical Lecture 11.

4. Again, I say, on hearing of a Son, understand it not merely in an improper sense, but as a Son in truth, a Son by nature, without beginning; not as having come out of bondage into a higher state of adoption, but a Son eternally begotten by an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation.

The Council of Nicaea adopted what is known as “The Nicene Creed” at a meeting in the city of Nicaea in 325. The Nicene Creed is a statement of faith; it was originally written in the Greek language, uses monogenes to relate to the begotten-ness of the Son from the Father.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

καὶ εἰςἕνα ΚύριονἸησοῦνΧριστόντὸνΥἱὸντοῦΘεοῦτὸνμονογενῆ, τὸνἐκτοῦ Πατρὸςγεννηθέντα, τοὐτέστινἐκτῆςοὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, ΘεὸνἐκΘεοῦ, ΦῶςἐκΦωτός, ΘεὸνἀληθινὸνἐκΘεοῦἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιοντῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗτὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τάτεἐντῷοὐρανῷ καὶ τὰἐντῇγῇ[vii]

Even earlier, Justin Martyr and Tertullian speak in these terms. Probably before AD 208, Tertullian wrote Against Praxeas.[viii] In Chapter 7 we find:

“The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways;” then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect – “When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.” Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, m a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart – even as the Father Himself testifies: “My heart,” says He, “has emitted my most excellent Word.” The father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence: “You art my Son, today have I begotten You;” even before the morning star did I beget You. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me.”...He became also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him.

Chapter 9:

Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another;

Chapter 15:

Now the Word of life became flesh, and was heard, and was seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was the “Word in the beginning with God” the Father, and not the Father with the Word. For although the Word was God, yet was He with God, because He is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father. “And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;” that is, of course, (the glory) of the Son, even Him who was visible, and was glorified by the invisible Father. And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God, in order that he might give no help to the presumption of the adversary, (which pretended) that he had seen the Father Himself and in order to draw a distinction between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he makes the additional assertion, ex abundanti as it were: “No man has seen God at any time.” What God does he mean? The Word? But he has already said: “Him we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled the Word of life.” Well, (I must again ask,) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him.

Chapter 21:

In His address to Nicodemus He says: “So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And again: “For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believes in Him is not condemned; but he that does not believes is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” Moreover, when John (the Baptist) was asked what he happened to know of Jesus, he said: “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He that believes on the Son has everlasting life; and he that does not believes the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Justin Martyr writes circa AD 160, “...and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power...” – which demonstrates that he understood the begotten aspect as part of the term monogenes.[ix]

These excerpts from early Christian writings demonstrate their knowledge and use of monogenes in relation to begetting rather than just being “unique” or “only.” Their manner of writing should help us with understanding this word, seeing how they used it in context with birth.

The use of “only begotten” has been attacked at the point of Hebrews 11:17. Whether one argues for “only begotten” or “only” one must explain its use here. If you say monogenes simply means “only,” you must wrestle with the same fact that Isaac was not literally the only son that Abraham had. Isaac was, however, the only uniquely begotten son of Abraham, through the miraculous intervention of God. This corresponds with the “only begotten” sense of monogenes (and in which Isaac may be considered a type of Christ). Hebrews 11:19 conveys that the writer is speaking in a figure, and we are definitely supposed to grasp the typology in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The biblical author John, the apostle, consistently uses the term monogenes in contexts in which he uses the term gennao to refer to the “new birth” (see the texts above, John 1:14, 18 with 1:13; John 3:16, 18 with 3:3-8; 1 John 4:9 with 4:7). The interaction between the words compares and contrasts our new birth experience and God the Son’s unique begotten-ness from the Father.

A majority of modern New Testament scholars dismiss the “only begotten” sense of monogenes. Like sheep, they follow one another and they all go astray. A consensus seems to agree that they are following Dale Moody, from his article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in December 1953. However, modern scholars are not the only scholars! Further, at least a small subset of modern scholars have emboldened themselves to challenge the status quo. Wayne Grudem intends to revise his Systematic Theology to reflect that monogenesmeans “only begotten”[x]

In “The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered,” John V. Dahms concludes that both external and internal evidence supports “only begotten.”

“We have examined all of the evidence which has come to our attention concerning the meaning of monogenēs in the Johannine writings and have found that the majority view of modern scholarship has very little to support it. On the other hand, the external evidence, especially that from Philo, Justin, Tertullian, and the internal evidence from the context of its occurrences, makes clear that ‘only begotten’ is the most accurate translation after all.”

I write this in hope that we are nearing that better day.

Links to articles on monogenes and “only begotten”

• An Inductive Study of the Use of Monogenes in the New Testament by Doug Kutilek
• Büschel on μονογενής, Hermann Martin Friedrich Büchsel
• Deep in the Weeds on MONOGENES and Eternal Generation by Denny Burk
• Eternal Generation, the “Only Begotten” Son, and Monogenes: A Summary of the Conversation by Brandon D. Smith
• “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” Dale Moody, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Dec., 1953), pp. 213-219
• John 1:18 - What Does Μονογενὴς Mean? by James Snapp, Jr.
• Lee Irons has posted a summary of his unpublished paper on MONOGENES by Denny Burk
• Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten’ by Charles Lee Irons
• Μονογενής = ‘only begotten’? by Daniel Wallace
• On the μουνογενες in Parmenides by John R. Wilson
• On the Sonship of Christ by Andrew Fuller
• The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered by John V. Dahms
• The Only Begotten Son (ο μονογενης υιος) by Michael Marlowe
• What Does It Mean That Jesus is Begotten? By David Tue

---

[i] These numbers correspond to the King James Version translation.

[ii] German (eingeborenen), Spanish (unigenito), and English (only begotten).

[iii]The RSV and most new translations thereafter. Writings that support “only begotten” include Marlowe, Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten’ by Lee Irons, Burk, and so on.

[iv] Denny Burk describes this view as currently “entrenched.”

[v] Jerome was commissioned to the work of the Latin Bible in AD 382. We do not ascribe inspiration to Jerome, but he was very competent in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages. In his understanding of the languages, he saw a correspondence between the Greek monogenes and the Latin unigenitus.

[vi] For example, some of these writers wrote of eternal generation. Some theologians who accept the “only begotten” terminology reject the idea of eternal generation, applying “only-begottenness” to the incarnation/virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Others accept eternal generation while arguing monogenes means “only” or “unique.”

[vii]Doug Kutilek has a right to disagree. Nevertheless, he charges those who spoke Greek as their native tongue with making up nonsense: “It also makes the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that Christ was ‘begotten but not made’ (gennethenta, oupoiethenta) so much verbal nonsense.” To me it is greater “nonsense” to think we understand their language and they did not! Doug Kutilek is especially antagonistic toward the King James Version of the Bible. His attacks on “only begotten” fit well within his overall attacks against the King James Bible.

[viii]Tertullian, Against Praxeas

[ix]Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 23

[x]In Denny Burk’s postings on the subject, he wrote about the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in 2016. Wayne Grudem (among others) presented on this subject. According to Burk, Grudem said he would revise his Systematic Theology to reflect that he now believes monogenesmeans “only begotten” (in the Johannine context).

We sing in the face of death, and other music quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify when possible.)

“We sing in the face of death because our hope is stronger than the grave.” -- Greg Morse

“Tears come easily to the sound of Heaven here below.” -- Dan O’Dell

“Music is an art unsearchable, Divine, and excellent, by which a true concordance of sounds, or harmony, is produced, that rejoiceth and cheereth the hearts of men.” -- Israel Holdroyd

“Sing lustily and with good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but lift up your voice with strength. Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, then when you sung the songs of Satan.” -- John Wesley

“Music made with your own hands, and heard in your own head and heart is incomparably the best.” -- Dmitri Dmitriyevich Shostakovich

“Worship is not a competition. If worship services were ‘American Idol’ or ‘The Voice,’ most of us would have been voted off long ago.” -- Scott Shepherd

“Music—what a powerful instrument, what a mighty weapon!” -- Maria August von Trapp

“A true friend learns the song of your heart and then sings it back to you when you forgotten the words.” -- sometimes credited to Shania Twain

“I don’t sing because I’m happy; I’m happy because I sing.” -- William James

“As long as we live, there is never enough singing.” -- Martin Luther

“The voice of humility is God’s music, and the silence of humility is God’s rhetoric.” -- Francis Quarles

The same gospel

The gospel of Christ does not change from location to location or from hearer to hearer. It is as constant from beginning to end as the glory of the immutable God which it proclaims. Cursed be anyone who is given to presume to have the right to take liberties with the good news of Messiah either in the addition of Adamic wisdom for clarity of understanding and poetic commentary or the deletion of one jot or tittle of the testimony of the sovereign God of the universe. The Word which spoke judgment against the deed of disobedience and forgiveness in the fashioning of the covering of skins in the garden to Adam and Eve is the same yesterday, today and forever, therefore the children of promise are not consumed.

Chet Dirkes

O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go

The hymn below was written by George Matheson (1842-1906), son of George and Jane Matheson of Glasgow, Scotland. Of the hymn he wrote:

“My hymn was composed in the manse of Innellan on the evening of the 6th of June, 1882…Something happened to me, which was known only to myself, and which caused me the most severe mental suffering. The hymn was the fruit of that suffering. It was the quickest bit of work I ever did in my life. I had the impression rather of having it dictated to me by some inward voice than of working it out myself.

“I am quite sure that the whole work was completed in five minutes, and equally sure it never received at my hands any retouching or correction. I have no natural gift of rhythm. All the other verses I have ever written are manufactured articles; this came like a dayspring from on high. I have never been able to gain once more the same fervor in verse.”

Each stanza of the hymn keys on a specific theme – love, light, joy, and the cross – especially relating the ever-faithful presence of God.

This hymn was first published in the Church of Scotland magazine Life and Work in January 1882. It was later included in The Scottish Hymnal in 1885. At the time the hymn was published in 1882, Matheson was living and preaching in Innellan, Argyllshire. George Matheson went blind in his youth, graduated from the University of Glasgow in 1862, and became a minister of the Church of Scotland. In 1886 Matheson became the pastor of St. Bernard’s Parish Church in Edinburgh, Scotland. He published a volume of hymns and poetry, called Sacred Songs, in 1890.  “O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go,” rather than a more standard meter, consists of four lines of 8 syllables and a closing line of 6 syllables (8.8.8.8.6).

Albert Lister Peace (1844-1912) wrote the tune St. Margaret for this hymn at the request of the committee for The Scottish Hymnal. As with Matheson’s hymn, Peace relates this tune coming to him and being completed quickly: “After reading it over carefully, I wrote the music straight off, and may say that the ink of the first note was hardly dry when I had finished the tune.”

1. O Love that wilt not let me go,

I rest my weary soul in Thee;

I give Thee back the life I owe,

That in Thine ocean depths its flow

May richer, fuller be.

2. O Light that followest all my way,

I yield my flickering torch to Thee;

My heart restores its borrowed ray,

That in Thy sunshine’s blaze its day

May brighter, fairer be.

3. O Joy that seekest me through pain,

I cannot close my heart to Thee;

I trace the rainbow through the rain,

And feel the promise is not vain

That morn shall tearless be.

4. O Cross that liftest up my head,

I dare not ask to fly from Thee;

I lay in dust life’s glory dead,

And from the ground there blossoms red

Life that shall endless be.

The problem, and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify when possible.)

“The problem with a living sacrifice is that it keeps crawling off the altar.” -- Steve Brown

“He who lays up treasures on earth spends his life backing away from his treasures. To him, death is loss. He who lays up treasures in heaven looks forward to eternity; he’s moving daily toward his treasures. To him, death is gain.” -- Randy Alcorn

“Try to remember – the greener grass across the fence may be due to a septic tank issue.” -- Unknown

“Now go back and read the verses you don’t have underlined and highlighted.”

“Death says you are less important than you’ve allowed yourself to believe. The gospel says you are far more loved than you’ve imagined.” -- Matthew McCullough

“God does not give us everything we want, but He does fulfill His promises, leading us along the best and straightest paths to Himself.” -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“Nothing is written in stone. Except tombstones, monuments, and such like – and the law of Moses!” 

“The best and most beautiful things in this world cannot be seen or even heard, but must be felt with the heart.” -- Helen Keller

“Fallen man is not a pure receptor of neutral data.” -- Steve M. Schlissel

“God’s work done in God’s way will never lack God’s supplies.” -- Hudson Taylor

And for my last quote of the day:
“One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings.” -- Diogenes Laërtius

Founders Religion

The opinions writers to “Letters to the Editor” of the Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel newspaper provide an ongoing source of entertainment, if not knowledge. On Sunday February 23,[i] correspondent Ron Hurst regaled us with the fact that the United States is not a theocracy, supported by half-truths such as:

• “Furthermore, not once is the word ‘god’ mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution.”
• “The majority of our forefathers, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and James Monroe were not Christians. Most of them were deists or theistic rationalists.”

On Tuesday Robert Ault countered, telling us that “Nature’s God” and “Creator” are found in the Constitution. He felled the final blow – We know the founders were Christians based on their appearance in a vision to Mormon Apostle Wilford Woodruff.[ii] I am certain that non-Mormons of every stripe (religious and irreligious) were quite convinced!!

On Wednesday Hurst was back, picking Ault’s nits. Assuredly, “the words ‘to which the laws of nature and natures God entitle them’ and ‘that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights’” were not in the Constitution. “They were in the Declaration of Independence instead.”[iii] True enough, though Hurst was not man enough to admit that he had it half-wrong on Sunday just as much as Ault was half-wrong on Tuesday!

The Declaration mentions God. The Constitution does not. The first document tells us why our founders separated from England. The second document establishes the laws of those who separated from England.

The United States is neither a theocracy nor an atheist-ocracy (which seems to be what some like Hurst want). The United States is a Constitutional Republic that guarantees freedom of religion.

The Founders’ religious beliefs are found in their writings. Their religious connections are found in their church affiliations or lack thereof. Read their writings. Look up their church memberships. These facts, found, will not support Hurst’s “most of them were deists or theistic rationalists” theory. The fact that “most of them were Christians” would not mean they started a theocracy. Baptist preachers, in fact, were some of the most avid opponents of anything that smelled like a theocracy. They did not, however, promote the popular nonsense of this day that Christians should sit inside their churches and shut up!

Yes, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists. On the other hand, most signers of the Declaration were active churchgoers, including at least one Christian minister![iv]Here is a quote from one of our founders, President George Washington, at his first inaugural address:

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency…I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire…Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained…

Washington’s inaugural address is not quite the blatant rationalistic deism Hurst would have us accept! It is clear that George Washington believed in a Creator, in prayer, in God’s providential dealings in history, in eternal truth – and that he thought most of the citizenry shared his beliefs.

---

[i] “Founders views on religion,” Ron Hurst, The Daily Sentinel, Sunday, February 23, 2020, page 5B.

[ii] “The Founding Fathers told us their views on religion,” Robert Ault, The Daily Sentinel, Tuesday, February 25, 2020, page 5A.

[iii] “More on church and state,” Ron Hurst, The Daily Sentinel, Wednesday, February 26, 2020, page 6A.

[iv] Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon. Benjamin Rush was co-founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society. Many other such religious connections can be easily discovered by those willing to do so. A good list of the church affiliations of the signers of the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and the U. S. Constitution can be found at Adherents.com.