Skip to main content

Why is Jesus Called the Son of God? The Watch Tower Argument

Image
By


The Watch Tower teaches: ‘The Bible often calls Jesus “the Son of God.” (John 1:49) The expression “Son of God” acknowledges that God is the Creator, or Source, of all life, including that of Jesus. (Psalm 36:9; Revelation 4:11) The Bible does not teach that God literally fathered a child in the same way that humans produce children.

‘The Bible also calls the angels “sons of the true God.” (Job 1:6) And the Bible says that the first human, Adam, was a “son of God.” (Luke 3:38) However, because Jesus was God’s first creation and the only one created directly by him, the Bible describes Jesus as the foremost Son of God.’

Monogenes

The implication clearly is there is nothing so special about Jesus, except his being the ‘foremost Son of God.’ Note they avoid John 3:16, which creates real problems for them since it contains the Greek monogenes to describe Jesus’ relationship with the Father.

On Facebook Bavesh Roger weighed in: ‘Much of this depends on the understanding of monogenes. Dr. James White says that genes does not imply to give birth or to beget and is not gennasthai (to come into being) but gignesthai/ginmai (to be born), the noun form, genos meaning kind or type. He gives two examples of the usage of monegenes, Ps. 25:16(LXX) and Heb. 11:17. The vocabulary of the Greek NT also describes monogenes as 'one of a kind,' 'only,' 'unique' (unicus), but not ‘only begotten,’ which would be monogennetos.

The word biblical commentary on John notes that the LXX uses the word monogenes for the Hebrew word yahid. Isaac was called Abraham's yahid/monogenes, even though Abraham had fathered another child who was still living, but never enjoyed the status of his yahid/monogenes Isaac. When this meaning is applied to Christ in John 1:14, 18 and 1 John 4:9, it reveals that the ‘only’ Son of God has no equal, is able to reveal the Father and shares a unique relationship with God the Father from all eternity which no one else has ever shared.’

Sons of God?

I am grateful to Bavesh. The Watch Tower article references Job 1:6 to make their point but ‘the sons of God’ in that passage are described using the Hebrew ben, which can mean, son, grandson, a male youth, a son of righteousness/unrighteousness, ‘son in the faith’ (2 Tim.1:2), sons of a nation, even members of a guild or society. They are not yahid/monogenes as are Isaac and Jesus.

Luke 3:38 gives us Adam being ‘the son of God.’ From this they infer nothing special about Jesus’ sonship. The problem here is the genealogy in Luke begins, ‘Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work] was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of He’li, son of Mat’that…of Adam, son of God.’ (NWT in the Kingdom Interlinear)

The word translated ‘son’ is the Greek huios which carries a similar range of meanings as the Hebrew ben, depending on context.

Dr Michael Heiser writes:

‘[Monogenēs] doesn’t mean “only begotten” in some sort of “birthing” sense. The confusion extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms mono (“only”) and gennaō (“to beget, bear”). Greek scholars later discovered that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao but rather from the noun genos (“class” or “kind”). The term literally means “one of a kind” or “unique” without connotation of created origin.
Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Rediscovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham WA: Lexham Press, 2015)

‘Son of God’ refers to Jesus’ nature, rather than his ancestral descent, in the same way ‘Son of Man’ refers to his human nature. When the Jews picked up stones to stone him, ‘Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?’

‘The Jews answered him, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.’’ (John 10:32,33)

It is no blasphemy to claim to be an angel, a messenger from God. Neither is it a capital offence to claim to be the Messiah, the Saviour of your people. It is blasphemy to call yourself God, and the Jews understood perfectly well what Jesus was saying of himself.

You can read more in an earlier post Jesus is not the Father

Also, on the website, Christ’s Divinity: Is the Jehovah’s Witness Jesus God?

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

By
The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...
70 comments
Read more

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

By
In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

By
The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...
18 comments
Read more