*Unless otherwise mentioned all Scriptures are from the KJV and, unless otherwise mentioned, all quotes from the SDA periodicals, letters, and manuscripts are from Ellen White
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16)
“Nothing so shows the wonderful condescension of God as this. He “so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.” John presents this wonderful subject with such simplicity that all may grasp the ideas set forth, and be enlightened (Review and Herald, April 5, 1906, par. 3)
To quote the SDA pioneer Roswell Cottrell, “If it is declared that the Father sent his Son into the world, I believe he had a Son to send. (R. F. Cottrell, RH, June 1st, 1869)
Inasmuch as the Bible tells us that God gave His only begotten Son, I believe that God had an only begotten Son to send.
Now, with respect to this plain reading of the Bible, the Testimony of Jesus agrees. God had a pre-incarnate only begotten Son. In fact, Lucifer got up a warfare over the matter that Christ was God’s only begotten Son.
“Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and Lucifer, that glorious angel, got up a warfare over the matter, until he had to be thrust down to the earth… {25LtMs, Ms 86, 1910, par. 29}
Believe it or not, what I am sharing with you in this op is adamantly opposed by many Christians. Today many are claiming that God did not really have an only begotten Son. They say that “only begotten” is a mistranslation of the Greek.
Amazingly enough, many Seventh-day Adventist Christians, who have the Testimony of Jesus as an help so that they will not misinterpret the Scriptures, are saying that very thing too! This is despite the thousands of times that the Spirit of prophecy uses “only begotten” in regard to Christ. Let me give two examples:
“A complete offering has been made; for “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son,”—not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, BUT A SON BEGOTTEN in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of His majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895, par. 3)
“Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God. They fell from their high estate because they wanted to be exalted. They had come to exalt themselves, and they forgot that their beauty of person and of character came from the Lord Jesus. This FACT the angels would obscure, that CHRIST WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ. One angel began the controversy and carried it on until there was rebellion in the heavenly courts among the angels. They were lifted up because of their beauty {25LtMs, Letter 42, 1910, par. 3}
Within the Seventh-day Adventist church today there is a growing controversy over Christ. Many are asking about Christ, “Whose Son is He?” More specifically, they are asking, “Was He God’s only begotten Son in His pre-incarnate existence?” and “What does only begotten Son even mean?”
The Seventh-day Adventist prophet speaks clearly on this issue and provides the answers.
She says that Jesus was God’s only begotten Son, even making it clear that He was such before this world was. She notes that the rebellious angels in heaven above, led by Lucifer, started a controversy and tried to obscure the “fact” that “Christ was the only begotten Son of God.” She even defines what this expression means by two negations and one positive assertion in the Signs of the Times quote above. God’s only begotten Son does not mean a son by creation, as were the angels, nor is it a son by adoption as is the forgiven sinner, but rather it is properly understood as meaning a Son begotten in the Father’s express image, in all the brightness of His majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection.
This really should settle the issue, for all Seventh-day Adventist Christians, inasmuch as the denomination professes to believe that the writings of Mrs. White “speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church” (SDAFB # 18) but, sadly, that fundamental belief often amounts to lip service, and many do not really believe the prophetic teaching. Many today are saying, some even explicitly so, that the Testimony of Jesus, via sister White, is wrong and the pre-incarnate Christ was not God’s “only begotten” Son. Others say that phrase is a mistranslation. Yet is it?
Welcome to the issue of the “monogenes.”
This is the Greek word behind the English translation “only begotten.” It is the contention of this author that this composite Greek word (“monos” with the “genes” stem) has two basic possible meanings – the first is “only begotten/only born” while the second is “only kind/one of a kind” – and the correct meaning, when applied to Christ, is “only begotten” or “only born.”
This word refers to the pre-incarnate Christ’s origins and explains why His material or substance is from God. This view is strongly opposed within the modern Seventh-day Adventist church today, even being considered as damnable heresy by some. Over and over again, it is claimed that “monogenes” means “unique” or “one of a kind” and the other possible meaning isn’t even mentioned or it is explicitly denied. This, of course, is directly contradictory to sister White who wrote by inspiration that “only begotten Son” means “a Son begotten.”
Here are several examples of the modern scholarly claim:
“The only begotten. Gr. Monogenes, from two words meaning “only” and “kind” and thus properly translated “unique,” “only,” “only one of a kind.” …. In respect to the five texts in John’s writings of Christ, the translation should be one of the following: ‘unique,’ ‘precious, ‘only,’ ‘sole,’ ‘the only one of his kind,’ but not ‘only begotten””….[Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on John 1:14]
“First of all, the expression “only begotten” is a translation of the Greek word monogenes. The word is a combination of two Greek words: monos, meaning “only” or “alone,” and genos, “kind,” or in a more extended sense, “sort”, “family,” “race,” or “nation” (the English word “gene” derives from this Greek word). To put it as succinctly as possible, the word signifies “unique” or “one of a kind.” (Whidden, Moon, Reeve “The Trinity” pg 95)
“The Greek word for “only begotten” is monogenes from two Greek words: monos meaning “only” and genos meaning “kind.” The Greek word genos comes from the verb ginomai, “come to be” and not from gennao which means to “beget.” So monogenes means to “come to be” rather than to be “begotten.” In other words, the emphasis is on Christ’s coming to be unique in His incarnation rather than coming to be in a generative sense. So Christ as “only begotten” means “one of a kind” (Norman Gulley, “God as Trinity” pg 128)
“Similarly, in John’s usage the phrase, “only begotten” refers to the uniqueness of Christ’s sonship—to distinctiveness, not to derivation. The Greek term involved, monogenes, is a compound of the two words monos (“one” or “only”) and genos (“kind,” from ginomai, not gennao), signifying the uniqueness of the person to whom it is applied. Monogenes means “only,” “unique,” “one of a kind,” “prized above all others…. (LeRoy Froom, Movement of Destiny pg 301)
I would humbly ask all of my Seventh-day Adventist brothers and sisters to consider the scholarly claims above in light of what the Seventh-day Adventist prophet told us that the rebellious angels sought to do when they were in heaven above at the start of the controversy.
“…This fact the angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ. One angel began the controversy and carried it on until there was rebellion in the heavenly courts among the angels. They were lifted up because of their beauty {25LtMs, Letter 42, 1910, par. 3}
Could it be that satan has brought in an incorrect understanding of the Greek word “monogenes” in order to try to obscure the fact that the pre-incarnate Christ was God’s only begotten Son – a Son begotten in His express image and one equal with God in authority, dignity, and Divine perfection?
Let’s explore this matter.
In order to do so we are going to have to explore a bit of etymology. Etymology is a science that studies the origin of words and how their meanings have changed over time. When we delve into this matter, I believe we will see good reason why the prophetess was correct and the modern scholars are wrong. So please say a prayer and let’s go.
The “gen” root:
Now, as mentioned earlier “monogenes” is a composite word. It has two elements “mono” and “genes.” No one has any question about the first part – it is clearly from “monos” which means “only” or “sole” but there are many questions about the “genes” suffix.
What we really need to do here is go back and understand the early Greek root “gen.” Where does that come from?
Now there is another language that preceded Greek, almost like an older sister. It is called Sanskript. Along with Greek, it is a part of the family of languages that come from an even older Proto-Indo-European language.
Now the Indo-European root is “genə.” In Sanskript the root is “gan.” There are some variant spellings too. This word has a broad range of meaning. It meant to generate, beget, produce, bring forth, become, etc,…. This very same thing is true with the Greek root. Thus the “gen” root in this language family deals with origin.
A variety of words developed from this that have a “gen” root or that use it as a prefix or suffix and these words overwhelmingly convey a generative meaning. Even in English (which is highly dependent upon Greek roots in terms of prefixes and suffixes) we still see this phenomenon. Think of words like genesis, generation, indigene, pathogen, etc,… In fact, let me break that last one down. Pathogen is from the Greek “pathos” (which means suffering) and the “-genes” suffix (which means to birth, generate, offspring, produce). We almost transliterate it directly! This English word is clearly built upon the foundation of Greek and the genes stem. I could give plenty more examples.
Here we have our first etymological evidence that “monogenes” – based on its roots – properly means “only begotten” or “only born.”
Now some of you may doubt what I am telling you here. As a second witness, I am going to quote a Seventh-day Adventist scholar named Edwin Reynolds. I took Greek from him quite a few years ago. I was giving a presentation to the professors at Southern Adventist University in April 2018. I had mentioned the controversy over the word “monogenes” and two professors then had the following interaction. The first one who spoke was Dr. Wilson Paroschi. He believes that “only begotten” is a mistranslation and that Egw only used it because of the influence of the KJV. He was responding to me and then Dr. Reynolds interrupted him:
Wilson Paroschi…. And when you say that “monogenes,” the etymology of “monogenes” is highly contested, it depends on which level you are. If you are in the highest scholarly level, it is not contested.
Edwin Reynolds: Well, I can show you lexicons that connect “gennao” and “genes” etymologically but they come from the same root.
Wilson Paroschi: But they are not mainstream
Edwin Reynolds: Well, that depends. Who says who is mainstream? [Audio Recording of Jason Smith’s April 12, 2018 presentation]
Unfortunately, there is a view in Christendom, even within Seventh-day Adventist, that smacks of scholarly arrogance. It is believed that the highest scholars know, of a certainty, that “monogenes” does not mean “only begotten.” No amount of data seems to be able to persuade men otherwise because it is dismissed by means of fallacy. Even if it comes from the SDA prophet(!) it is discounted because it isn’t from the learned, high scholars!
Yet the reality is that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that “only begotten” is a true meaning and there are even some high scholars who admit as much. Unfortunately, it is sometimes the case that SDA scholars and laypersons are studying this matter within silos and the data they share is designed to reinforce their defensive position rather than allow for legitimate inquiry and challenge. This document is designed to counterbalance that by showing the neglected side.
Other “genes” Greek words:
As we move forward let’s now consider other Greek words. You see the argument that many of the brethren espouse about “monogenes” appears to be coming out from a continual effort to rid the “genes” stem of the viable meaning of “begotten.” Yet this argument collapses because it is not made consistently. If I start listing out Greek words such as:
αγεηνς
ευγενης
συγγενης
προγενης
Etc,…
A person doesn’t even have to know how to read Greek to see that the “genes” stem is there for all of them. Even the English word “genes” or “geneology” will lead you in the right direction but I digress. Look at those Greek words above.
Are men going to be consistent and rid the “begotten” or “birth” aspect from out of all of them? Or is it just “monogenes” that gets this special type of treatment?
Let’s get into the Bible itself. We will read what was spoken to Mary.
“καὶ ἰδού, Ἐλισάβετ ἡσυγγενής σου…” (Luke 1:36a Greek text)
This is the record of what Gabriel said to Mary. Here is what this means if we translate it literally:
“And look, Elizabeth the with-born of you…” (author’s translation)
This translation is due to the fact that “genes” stem in “suggenes” literally means a birth. This is the proof that Elizabeth is a relative by birth to Mary. Thus to put it in more comprehensible English.
“And look, Elizabeth the one who by birth is with you. (author’s translation into better English)
An excellent article by B.P. Harris notes the following about the “genes” stem.
“In Liddell and Scott, the stem “—genes” occurs 168 times in various Greek words. In all these occurrences, the overwhelming majority carry the sense of “derivation.” Of the 168 occurrences, 111 times it is used with the sense of “derivation” or “born,” and only 17 times is it used with the sense of “class” or “kind!” Of the remaining uses, 28 times the definition is unavailable and the other 12 times miscellaneous meanings are assigned to the word 260 [Footnote “260. A tally gleaned from Perseus Digital Library Project. Ed. Gregory R. Crane. Updated Mar. 31, 2009. Tufts University. Accessed Oct. 1, 2009 www.perseus.tufts.edu [End Quote]
What is particularly grieving to my soul is how so many SDA people, with their agenda of unbegottenism, purposefully ignore this data. They act like we don’t know what the -genes stem means but even in English we know. And, quite sadly, some continue to do this even after they have been shown the fact that there are a plethora of Greek word with the “-genes” stem that definitely mean birth or generation! And, again, bear in mind the Seventh-day Adventist prophet herself says that “only begotten” Son means “a Son begotten.”
What about “genos”?
If you were paying attention to the scholarly quotes near the start of this article you should have noticed that the etymological break down they gave of “monogenes” emphasized that the “genes” stem was from “genos” and not “gennao.” And it was claimed that “genos” means “kind.” Thus, it was claimed this word really means “unique” or “one of a kind.” This was their way of trying to eliminate the “begotten” aspect.
What shall we say in response to this?
To begin with there was a completely different Greek word that John could have used if he was trying to convey the sense of Christ being “unique.” That word is “monodikos.” This is a Greek word that, like “monogenes” goes back centuries, even into the time of Plato. Yet John did not use this word. Instead, he chose a word that has a clear potential meaning of an “only born” or “only begotten.”
Even more so, something that was left out is that even if “monogenes” has “genos” as one of its roots, that doesn’t help at all. In fact, it is a self-defeating argument because the word “genos” also means “born.” You see “ginomai” and “gennao” and “genos” are all semantically related, not just in terms of their etymology but also in terms of a cross over of range in terms of meaning. Thus, the schoarly case isn’t really helped at all because “genos” actually carries “birth” and “offspring” and “generation” and “lineage” within its range of semantic meaning! If you are tempted to think I am lying, I’ll prove it. Open your Bible to Revelation 22:16
“I Jesus have sent Mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the OFFSPRING of David, and the bright and morning star (Rev 22:16)
The Greek word translated as “offspring” here is “γένος.” (genos). It is correctly translated by the KJV. Yet many scholars today will not tell you this about “genos” and the reason why is because of their theological bias. They want “monogenes” to mean “one of a kind” or “unique” so as to remove the generative aspect from it.
Again let’s read God’s Word. This time it’s Acts 18:2
“And found a certain Jew named Aquila, BORN in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. (Acts 18:2)
Do I even need to say what Greek word was used there? It’s a form of genos!
Here is another example:
“Men and brethren, children of the STOCK of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent (Acts 13:26)
Guess what Greek word this is? Again, it’s a form of “genos.” Only someone with a theological agenda would deny that “genos” is being used to talk about Abraham’s substance. It is speaking about being born via the genetic line of Abraham.
I could give more examples, and they would all expose the fallacy of the argument that attempts to say that “genos” being the root for the “-genes” stem eliminates the “begotten” aspect. The argument that is being made to oppose “only begotten” is self-defeating because “genos” itself is a word that can mean “born” and “offspring” and “stock.” Trying to close the door against “only begotten” by a etymological break down that can mean “only born” and “only stock” and “only offspring” is not a sound argument at all.
What about the historical usage?
The word “monogenes” cannot be honestly denied as a word that carried the meaning of a generation of or a production of an offspring, way before the Vulgate, way before the apostle John. Case and point. Plato (428-348 BC) wrote this in Critias:
[113δ] γῆς ἀνδρῶν γεγονότων Εὐήνωρ μὲν ὄνομα, γυναικὶ δὲ συνοικῶν Λευκίππῃ: Κλειτὼ δὲ μονογενῆ θυγατέρα ἐγεννησάσθην….
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.%20Criti.%20113&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0179&fbclid=IwAR208jNWOYRs6_2gR6jHPaNq1W5BEQnISZqoyQaupvcZ19zB7_9uMKp1XUE
Now how does this translate? You can see the translation given:
“Thereon dwelt one of the natives originally sprung from the earth, 2 Evenor by name, [113d] with his wife Leucippe; and they had for offspring an ONLY-BEGOTTEN daughter, Cleito….
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.%20Criti.%20113&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0180&fbclid=IwAR0WM15-SLg5F0W9dbqORY5u5u57eq5Q-qG2V9sclE5LfLy1hFCbPh-_xe4
Now the English translation started a bit back before 113d but that was necessary to make the clause comprehensible in our language.
Anyhow, the part that concerns us here is the following:
“Κλειτὼ δὲ μονογενῆ θυγατέρα ἐγεννησάσθην.”
No matter which way you spin it you, if you are honest about language, you will not be able to deny that “monogene” means an only begotten. This is inescapable because of “ἐγεννησάσθην” which means “they begot.” So Keito, their daugher, a “monogene,” was begotten by them.
If you study Greek databasis you will see that “monogenes” was a word used, most frequently, to refer to a genetic offspring. This goes way, way back, even before the time of Plato.
What about the other meanings?
With all of this said, we do not want to be guilty of denying that the Greek word “monogenes” conveys other meanings than just “only begotten” or “only born.” Language is complex and different meanings exist with the same word. Egw explains:
“….The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. {Ms 24, 1886, par. 6}
Without delving into the details, my studies indicate that “monogenes” developed diachronically [related to the change of meaning over time] to have other meanings than just “only begotten” or “only offspring.” However, “only begotten” or “only born” appears to be the primary meaning, historically speaking, and the root from where the other meanings developed.
Also, speaking synchronically [at one point in time] now, with the apostle John himself, he had recourse to a completely different Greek word if he was trying to convey the thought that Christ was a one of a kind or unique Son rather than an only begotten Son. That word is “monodikos.” It does not mean a generation at all. And this was a contemporaneous word during his era. It is actually an ancient Greek word used by Plato as well just like “monogenes” was, yet John didn’t use “monodikos.” Instead, he used a word that had a historically dominant meaning of a sibling-less offspring, an only begotten child.
Now, to be frank, it absolutely and continually blows my mind how so many modern-day SDA scholars come along and just appear to dismiss all of this, especially considering the historical belief of the SDA church and the express words of an inspired author, their own SDA prophet, who used to talk to Jesus in person! She explicitly stated “only begotten Son” as “a Son begotten” yet certain SDA leaders today openly say otherwise! This is despite the historical usage, despite the clear etymological range of meaning, (i.e. the overwhelming meaning of the “genes” stem in Greek), and despite the express assertions of SDA prophet! We have been told, by a true prophet, that Christ was the only begotten Son and this was a fact that the rebellious angels tried to obscure in heaven above ! To see SDA men, even the leaders, argue the same thing as demons is very disturbing. May heaven help us!
“Be not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature. {SpTB02 16.2}
“Adventist beliefs have changed over the years…Most startling is the teaching regarding Jesus Christ….Many of the Pioneers including James White, J.N. Andrews, Uriah Smith, and J.H. Waggoner, held to an Arian or Semi-Arian view. That is that the Son at some point in time, before the creation of our world was generated by the Father. (William Johnson, editor, Adventist Review, January 6, 1994)
A most startling change has occurred! SDA Christology has shifted several times. It went from a pre-incarnate only begotten Son in time, to a Son begotten outside of time, to the current belief of an unbegotten person who was not really the only begotten Son of God at all. The ontological Sonship of the pre-incarnate Christ has been removed. Any reference to the pre-incarnate only begotten Son is accounted as a metaphor, or perhaps a prophetic, covenantal term due to the plan of salvation. The true Father/Son relationship which has been sustained prior to the commencement of time and creation has been made void. So also the Testimony of Jesus which clearly declares it.
“The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” [Proverbs 29:18.] Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God’s remnant people in the true testimony {6LtMs, Lt 12, 1890, par. 45}
The Testimony of Jesus:
Now someone might say this is all Greek to me. I don’t read Greek so how can I know that what you, brother Smith, are saying is correct when compared to the scholars? Is there anyway to objectively know the truth? Praise God there is! Hence one of the purposes of the Testimony of Jesus is plainly stated:
“…God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of His people to His word, to give them a clearer understanding of it {4T 245.3}
“…God has, in that Word, promised to give visions in the “last days”; not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth. {EW 78.1}
So let us bring this issue to the objective witness of the Testimony of Jesus through sister White (and I realize I am being a bit redundant here but this will not hurt any of us).
I am claiming that the correct translation of “monogenes” with respect to the Lord Jesus is “only begotten” or “only born.” Others are claiming that this is an incorrect translation and that the “begotten” or “born” aspect needs to be eliminated. He is not really the “begotten” of God but rather “unique” or “one of a kind.”
So who is correct?
Turning to the Testimony of Jesus we read:
“A complete offering has been made; for “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”—not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. {ST May 30, 1895, par. 3}
This is the only statement, in the entire Spirit of prophecy, where the phrase “only begotten Son” is explicitly defined. It is defined by two negations and one positive assertion. It is not a son by creation, as were angels, nor a son by adoption as is the forgiven sinner but rather a Son begotten.
We should now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those who seek to remove the “begotten” aspect do “err from Bible truth.” God has given us this statement so that we can have “a clear understanding” of His Word.
And let us make another very important point. Where did the denial of the begotten aspect come from? The Testimony of Jesus tells us.
“Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God. They fell from their high estate because they wanted to be exalted. They had come to exalt themselves, and they forgot that their beauty of person and of character came from the Lord Jesus. This fact the angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ. One angel began the controversy and carried it on until there was rebellion in the heavenly courts among the angels. They were lifted up because of their beauty. {25LtMs, Lt 42, 1910, par. 3}
Before this world even existed, there were rebellious deceitful angels who tried to obscure the fact that Christ was God’s only begotten Son. This rebellion and deceit originated with Lucifer, who got up a warfare over the matter that God had an only begotten Son. This is central to the entire controversy. We are told about this over and over again:
“When God would not concede to Satan’s claim to a place above His only begotten Son, Satan rebelled. There was war in heaven, and he was cast out. He pressed his claim to be placed above Christ, but the warfare resulted in his losing his position in the heavenly courts. {25LtMs, Lt 132, 1910, par. 4}
“…It means that when the angels came to claim the highest place in heaven, above the only begotten Son of God, it was not given to them. And because they did not receive it, there was war in heaven, and those that wanted a higher place, to crowd out Christ Jesus, were cast out of heaven because they would not repent and accept the rule of God; and they may be listening to me today. {25LtMs, Ms 84, 1910, par. 36}
“…the first departure from truth in the history of the fall of Lucifer from heaven. He occupied a special, exalted position in the heavenly courts. He must have no one higher than himself. He must be next to God in efficiency. But Christ was above him, and he claimed he must be above Christ. Christ was the only begotten Son of God, united with God. {25LtMs, Lt 157, 1910, par. 1}
“But Lucifer, the most glorious angel next to Christ, thought himself equal with God and made the effort, because of his beauty and glory, that he should be next to God, and then he could work out God’s plans. Thus Lucifer claimed the position next to the Creator. But Christ was the only begotten Son of God. Lucifer made war in heaven and would not take the position God assigned him, therefore he fell from his high estate and has been in the world, a warring element against God’s plans, and has had great power to allure and deceive souls to ruin them. There have been two parties in the world, the true and the false. {24LtMs, Lt 189, 1909, par. 29}
“I am instructed to say to you, All this holding to sentiments of infallibility is a specious device of the angel that was so exalted in the heavenly court. His beauty was so highly exalted that he thought he should be as God, and Christ must be second to him; but the Lord informed Satan this could not be possible. Christ was His only begotten Son. {25LtMs, Lt 157, 1910, par. 7}
“Lucifer was the most lovely being in all our world, but he fell from his high estate because the loveliness and glory he possessed (given of God), did not make himself [as God’s] only-begotten Son {18LtMs, Ms 200, 1903, par. 4}
As I mentioned before, the Testimony of Jesus uses “only begotten” thousands of times and it uses it often in the pre-incarnate reality. Yet certain SDAs today adamantly deny this as correct. Think of what that means. They place themselves in a position where they cannot be corrected, even by a prophet who used to talk with Jesus face to face in vision!
“The enemy has made his masterly efforts to unsettle the faith of our own people in the testimonies, and when these errors come in they claim to prove all the positions by the Bible, but they misinterpret the Scriptures. They make bold assertions, as did Elder Canright, and misapply the prophecies and the Scriptures to prove falsehood. And after men have done their work in weakening the confidence of our churches in the testimonies they have torn away the barrier, that unbelief in the truth shall become widespread, and there is no voice to be lifted up to stay the force of error {6LtMs, Lt 109, 1890, par. 12}
“This is just as Satan designed it should be, and those who have been preparing the way for the people to pay no heed to the warnings and reproofs of the testimonies of the Spirit of God will see that a tide of errors of all kinds will spring into life. They will claim Scripture as their evidence, and deceptions of Satan in every form will prevail {6LtMs, Lt 109, 1890, par. 13}
Even at the level of the ministry the foundation of the faith may be undermined:
“Ministers have gone to Battle Creek and are not presenting the truth but errors that strike at the foundation of our faith. This is just as Satan meant it to be. Men are giving heed to seducing spirits and will become adepts in misconstruing the Scriptures and testifying to falsehoods. Satan is looking on with great delight {20LtMs, Ms 151, 1905, par. 5}
Hopefully you have now seen – by etymology and by the Testimony of Jesus – that only begotten Son is correct. This means a Son begotten and He was such before our world existed.
The historical SDA position:
According to modern scholarship – the translation of “only begotten” Son is wrong. Yet there was a living prophet within Adventism, for approximately 80 years, who not only suffered this error but actively taught it! This modern SDA scholarly viewpoint is beyond credulity to me. Let’s trace the history. I will start in 1854.
“TO BE THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN A DIFFERENT SENSE THAN TO BE A SON BY CREATION; for in that sense all the creatures he has made are sons…His being the only begotten of the Father supposes that NONE EXCEPT HIM WERE THUS BEGOTTEN; hence he is, in truth and verity the only begotten Son of God; and as such he must be Divine; that is, be a partaker of the Divine nature. This term expresses his highest, and most exalted nature…BUT ALL THE WORKS OF CREATION ARE ASCRIBED TO HIM as the “first born of every creature;’ hence the birth spoken of, MUST HAVE BEEN PREVIOUS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE FIRST CREATURE IN HEAVEN OR IN EARTH…This gives “the only begotten of the Father” (see verse 14) intelligent existence BEFORE THE FIRST ACT OF CREATIVE POWER was put forth, and proves that it is his Divine nature here spoken of; ” (J.M. Stephenson Review and Herald Nov 14, 1854)
“According to this, Jesus Christ is BEGOTTEN OF GOD IN A SENSE THAT NO OTHER BEING IS; else he could not be HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. Angels are called sons of God, and so are righteous men; but Christ is his Son in a higher sense, in a closer relation, that either of these. God made men and angels out of materials already created. He is the author of their existence, their Creator, hence their Father. But Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father’s own substance. HE WAS NOT CREATED OUT OF MATERIAL AS THE ANGELS AND OTHER CREATURES WERE. He is truly and emphatically the “Son of God,” the same as I am the son of my father. This will appear more plain as we proceed” (D.M. Canright, Review and Herald June 18, 1867)
“3. Christ is THE ONLY LITERAL SON OF GOD. “THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER. HE IS GOD BECAUSE HE IS THE SON OF GOD; not by virtue of his resurrection. If Christ is THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF FATHER, then we cannot be begotten of the Father in a literal sense. It can only be in a secondary sense of the word… (J. G. Matteson, Review and Herald, October 12th 1869, ‘Children of God’)
“Will you please favor me with those scriptures which plainly say that Christ is a created being?
Answer: “YOU ARE MISTAKEN IN SUPPOSING THAT S.D. ADVENTIST TEACH THAT CHRIST WAS EVER CREATED. THEY BELIEVE, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT HE WAS “BEGOTTEN” OF THE FATHER, AND THAT HE CAN PROPERLY BE CALLED GOD AND WORSHIPED AS SUCH.” (W. H. Littlejohn, Question No. 96, Review and Herald, April 17, 1883)
“HE WAS BEGOTTEN, NOT CREATED. HE IS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER, SO THAT IN HIS VERY NATURE HE IS GOD; and since this is so “it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” (E. J. Waggoner, The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1889)
“Three questions have been handed in which I now will answer. (1) The evidence is wanted that Christ is a created being… {R.C. Porter, General Conference Daily Bulletin February 2-4, 1893, p. 120.4}
“ELDER PORTER THEN SAID THAT IN SPEAKING OF CHRIST HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SAID CREATED, BUT “BEGOTTEN.” Begotten is the exact language of the Scripture.The new birth which we must experience to become the children of God is a new creation. We are born of the Spirit of God. This is beyond our comprehension. NEITHER CAN WE TELL HOW CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER. This is one of the “deep things of God.” {General Conference Daily Bulletin February 2-4, 1893, p. 120.5}
“It is for the well-being and happiness of God’s creatures that some of his intelligences should receive “gifts” and “powers” which others do not. UPON CHRIST, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER (ALL OTHER BEINGS WERE CREATED BY CHRIST) was bestowed creative, life-giving, and law-making power. In these he was made equal with the eternal Father…. {R. A. Underwood General Conference Daily Bulletin February 2-4, 1893, p. 99.11}
“CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN, NOT CREATED; Satan was created, not begotten. As THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON Christ could enter fully into the councils of God. Because he could not do this as Christ did, envy sprang up in the heart of Satan, and he began to determine, I will exalt myself...{E.J. Waggoner, Bible Echo and Signs of the Times February 17, 1896, p. 52.12}
“THE SCRIPTURES NOWHERE SPEAK OF CHRIST AS A CREATED BEING, BUT ON THE CONTRARY STATE THAT HE WAS BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER.” (1897 Uriah Smith, Daniel and Revelation, p. 430)
“This is indeed a divine trio, but THE CHRIST OF THAT TRINITY WAS NOT A CREATED BEING such as His angels – HE WAS THE “ONLY BEGOTTEN” OF THE FATHER, and He came to the earth as the one with the Father FROM THE “DAYS OF ETERNITY” Micah 5:2 (margin). His goings forth were of old, and He came full of “grace and truth” to reveal God to man. John 1:14, 17 (R. A. Hare “The Trinity” Australian Union Conference Record July 19, 1909)
NOTE: Notice that this “trinity” included an “only begotten” Son who was “from the days of eternity.”
“From a reading of John 1:1-3, 10, it will be seen that the world, with all it contains, was created by Christ (the Word), for “all things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.” THE ANGELS, BEING CREATED, ARE NECESSARILY LOWER THAN CHRIST, THEIR CREATOR. CHRIST IS THE ONLY BEING BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER.” (James Edson White, Past, Present, and Future, page 52, chapter, ‘Angels – their nature’, 1914 edition (1909))
All of the quotes above were in Ellen White’s lifetime. She never once repudiated or corrected them. Now these next quotes are all from after her death:
“Since CHRIST IS BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, HE MUST THEREFORE BE OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE as the Father; hence he must have the same divine attributes that God has, and THEREFORE HE IS GOD.” (O. A. Johnson, Bible Doctrines, page 34, Lesson IX, ‘God the Father’ 1917)
“Just another thought. JESUS WAS BORN TWICE. HE WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER. ISN’T THAT TRUE? AND THEN HE CAME AND WAS BORN ON THIS EARTH. Isn’t that true? Jesus was born twice and every soul that gets into the kingdom will have to be born twice. Isn’t that so? Did not Jesus say it? “Verily, except a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of God.” There must be the second birth before we can possibly be saved. – (The New Birth” J. G. Lamson, The Life Boat March 1918)
“To beget means to cause to exist- Webster. The human body that was prepared for him was begotten, but Christ, the Annointed One, was not brought into existence when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. “His goings forth have been from of old from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER SOME-TIME BEFORE THE PERIOD KNOWN AS TIME, (Rev 3:14) and he was begotten again at his resurrection (Acts 13:33, 34) (C.F. McVagh “Stick to the Message Western Canadian Tidings December 18, 1918)
“…the Son is co-eternal with the Father. THAT DOES NOT PREVENT HIS BEING THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.….There is no contradiction to say that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, and YET THE SON IS THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER.” (W. W. Prescott, Report of the 1919 Bible Conference for July 2nd, pg 20)
“As the absolute Son, He, who ‘in the beginning was with God, and was God,’ WAS BEGOTTEN BEFORE TIMES ETERNAL; as the Son, who was the-God-man, He was begotten by the resurrection from the dead. So shall we be ‘sons of God, being sons, of the resurrection.’ Luke 20:26.” (W. W. Prescott ST, Jan 8, 1929)
“THE WORD “BORN” IS USED BECAUSE, in contrasting the Creator* with His creation, IT POSTULATES THE NATURE OF THE LORD’S ORIGIN. HE WAS NOT CREATED AS WERE CREATURES, BUT WAS BORN OUT OF GOD AS GOD; AND SO IS OF THE SAME NATURE AS THE FATHER. Just as a human son is born human by nature because his father is human, so the divine Son of God is by nature “born” God because His Father is God….ALL ENDEAVORS TO PLACE THE SON IN TIME, TO APPREHEND HIS DIVINE INCEPTION, MUST DISSOLVE. He is indeed, the “Alpha and the Omega,” “the first and the last,” “the beginning and the end” (“William G. Wirth, Signs of the Times, August 5th, 1930 *typo fixed)
“Cumulative evidence that the Son existed with the Father before creation is abundant in the Scriptures. In the few passages we have studied here, we find that Christ was with the Father “before the world was,” “from, the days of eternity,” “before the foundation of the world,” “before all things.” HE WAS THEREFORE NO PART OF CREATION, BUT WAS “BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER” in the days of eternity, AND WAS VERY GOD HIMSELF” (Sabbath School Lesson Study, 4th quarter 1936, Lesson 3, October 17th 1936, page 13. ‘The Godhead’)
…Proverbs 8:22-30. Before any other creature was given life, GOD BROUGHT FORTH HIS SON, HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, MADE OF HIS OWN DIVINE SUBSTANCE AND IN HIS EXPRESS IMAGE. Christ was “first-born.” The Son was given self-existent life. He was made immortal; that is, He was given perpetual life within Himself. (Dallas Young, Signs of the Times – January 1, 1946)
“The third verse [of Hebrews 1] presents Christ as “being the brightness of his [God’s] glory.” The participle “being” is AN EXPRESSION OF ETERNAL, TIMELESS EXISTENCE, and has the same sense as “was” in John 1: 1, “In the beginning was the Word.” The Word is Christ. (Verse 14) He did not come into existence in the beginning. In the beginning He was. When He came to this world He became flesh. He had not previously been flesh. By way of contrast He did not become the brightness of the Father’s glory. He always was. This constitutes the essential and eternal ground of His personality. “Brightness” is variously translated outshining, out raying, reflection. IT HAS THE SAME RELATION TO GOD’S GLORY AS THE RAYS HAVE TO THE SUN. The rays cannot be separated from the sun, nor the sun from its rays. The two are inseparable. SO WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON.” (M.L. Andreasen, 1948, The Book of Hebrews)
“The next fact inferred from Scripture is that there is some sort of “priority” among the persons of the Godhead. Of course, this is not a priority in respect to time, FOR GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME, except when He chooses to break into it. He is above and beyond it. But what do we mean by this priority? In the terms of Scripture, THE SON IS BEGOTTEN BY THE FATHER, and the Spirit proceeds from Both… (R.M. Johnston “What Can We Know About the Holy Trinity?” The Ministry November 1964 pg 9)
Note: We can clearly see the adoption of Athanasian trinitarianism among these SDA leaders after Ellen White died. I believe this was an error in that they were now making God and His Son inseparable. Yet I would be merciful to them. It’s easy to see why they would have gone that route because there was so much clear Bible and SoP evidence for a pre-incarnate begetting of God’s Son. They did not interpret the EGW quote about life original, unborrowed, underived being “in” Christ the same way that modern SDAs do.
Perhaps at a later time we can discuss the DA 530 quote and I can show you the other lines of inspired evidence in the Bible and SoP for the pre-incarnate begetting of Christ besides this one about Him as the “monogenes.” I hope, however, that you can see that “monogenes” really does mean “only begotten” when used for Christ and that is in an error to remove the “begetten” or “born” aspect away from it.