The Begotten of the Father

Daniel Mann has taught at the New York School of the Bible since 1992 and blogs at www.MannsWord.blogspot.com. He is the author of Embracing the Darkness: How a Jewish, Sixties, Berkeley Radical Learned to Live with Depression, God’s Way (Xulon Press, 2004). In an article entitled “Jesus: The “Begotten” of the Father” he writes:

The letter to the Hebrews presents many teachings affirming the deity of Christ and His supremacy over the angels, Moses, and everything else that had come before Him.

However, after asserting that Jesus “made the worlds,” that He is “the brightness of [God’s] glory and the express image of His person,” and that He upholds “all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:2–3),1 this letter cites a controversial verse—at least controversial today—to prove that He is uniquely related to the Father as His Son: “For to which of the angels did He ever say: ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You’?” (Heb. 1:5; quoting Ps. 2:7).

Certainly, Scripture never does refer to angels in this manner. However, this verse suggests to some that Jesus is “begotten” in the sense of being created and having a beginning in time. If this is the case, then He can’t be eternal, and therefore He can’t be God. This same “problem” is also reflected in perhaps the most famous New Testament verse: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten [monogenes in Greek] Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Many cults understand this verse, and others like it, to affirm that Jesus was birthed into existence. Mormon Doctrine reads, “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”2

However, this is to understand the term “begotten” with our understanding and not from the perspective of scriptural usage. Hebrews 1:5 was quoted from Psalm 2, a psalm widely regarded as messianic, even among ancient Jewish authorities: “I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son; Today I have begotten You’” (Ps. 2:7).

“Begotten” must be understood in the way it was originally intended, and we can determine this by examining the context. In this context, “begotten” can’t possibly mean, “to physically birth.”3 The One who is “begotten” is being addressed. He therefore already exists, even before He is “begotten.” The verse therefore can’t mean, “The Lord has said to Me… ‘Today, I am giving birth to you.’” Instead, “begotten” must mean something else. Besides, Hebrews quotes Psalm 2:7 to prove the superiority of Christ over the angels. Reference to a physical human birth could hardly demonstrate His superiority.4 Continue reading

The New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament

in an artile entilted “CAN THAT BE RIGHT? THE USE OF OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT” writes:

It’s Christmas season and that means renewed attention on Messianic prophecy. Ah, the familiar sounds of “a virgin shall give birth,” “the government shall be upon his shoulders,” and good ole “Bethlehem Ephrathah.” It makes a churchgoer feel all warm and cuddly inside.

And frankly, a bit confused.

If we’re honest, the way the New Testament uses the Old Testament seems a little far-fetched. I mean, we can see, just like the scribes did, that Micah 5:2 is a foretelling of the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1-6), but was Hosea really making a prediction about the Christ just because he happened to mention “Egypt” (Hos. 11:1) and Jesus’ family fled to Egypt (Matt. 2:15)? If we interpreted Scripture like Matthew does, we’d be chased out of our pulpits and small groups, right?

The New Testament’s use of the Old Testament is a complicated subject. Even evangelical scholars don’t agree on all the particulars of the best approach (see for example this book and D.A. Carson’s review). Still, there are several principles, clarifications, and reminders that can help us make sense of the Apostles’ seemingly willy-nilly use of the Old Testament. Continue reading

Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

by Josh Buice (original source here)

Yesterday I preached from Mark 10:1-12 on the subject of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. What exactly does the Bible say about this often debated subject? My sermon was one of the longest sermons I’ve ever preached and I sought to deliver it with pastoral sensitivity while not compromising one ounce of God’s truth. I felt as if I had delivered a weighty message upon the completion of the sermon. This is a very important subject in our age of compromise regarding marriage.

Jesus’ Ministry of Teaching (Mark 10:1)

Upon arriving in the Perean region beyond the Jordan, a great crowd came to Jesus. Their agenda was to receive healing of physical disease and perhaps to see this man who had literally become famous through His preaching and miracles. Jesus, as was His custom, taught the people. While He did perform miracles, His foundational ministry objective was teaching and preaching. This should be emphasized when reading about how Jesus ministered and it should not be forsaken in the church’s ministry in our present day.

Jesus’ Teaching on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (Mark 10:2-12)

First, we must note the way Jesus ended up teaching on this subject. The Pharisees were seeking to trap Jesus, and they raised a question about divorce. According to the parallel account in Matthew 19:3, they asked, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” Two competing rabbinical schools existed in Jesus’ day, one ultra liberal and the other somewhat conservative, both had opposing views on the subject. The Hillel school purported the liberal position which created loopholes for divorce for almost anything. The Shammai school taught a more conservative position. Jewish history accounts for instances of men divorcing their wives on the basis of an inappropriately cooked meals, talking too loud, speaking to men in public, or dishonoring the husband’s mother-in-law. Continue reading