Buzzard complains at length about Platonizing “fathers” insisting that the New Testament teaches the “eternal generation” of the Son, citing the Lewis Carrol passage here. (pp. 260ff) I think he’s right to do so; the exegetical crimes of the “fathers” are legion. But in the end, I think Buzzard goes a bit too far.
The “word ‘beget‘,” he says, “is deprived of its actual meaning.” (p. 260) A page later:
The word “beget” had a perfectly easy meaning: to originate, to procreate, to cause to come into existence.” (p. 261)
I would say: let’s be careful here. If I understand correctly, the core meaning of the verb gennao is to become the parent of a child, to procreate, whether as father or mother.
Does this necessarily imply bringing into existence? Arguably not. If it did, then a sentence like this would be a self-contradiction (like married bachelor, square circle, or Jewish pope): “Sarah and Abraham begat Isaac, and when they did, Isaac’s soul moved from heaven down into Sarah’s womb.” Who would say such a thing? Well, a bloke like Origen, who believed in the pre-human-existence of all humans (i.e. their rational souls). And what if, for reasons known only to him, God first created Isaac’s soul, and then, say, five years later made those of Sarah and Abe. And later, Sarah and Abe beget (become the parents of) Isaac. Here, the one begotten would be older than the ones who begot him.
Now I’m not telling you to believe these things, or that the scriptures teach them. Rather, my sole point is that these scenarios are not obviously self-contradictory. And so begetting isn’t by definition causing to come into existence. It could, though, actually imply that – but this is a controversial thesis, not a matter that dictionary-makers can settle.
Here’s an comparable case. In my philosophy classes, every so often we discuss the possibilities for life after death. Usually one student in the class will pipe up that “death” just means ceasing to exist. I reply, surely not, otherwise it would be a contradiction to suppose that someone is dead, yet still exists – say, in heaven enjoying the presence of God, or transmitting messages to a medium. But there is no discernible contradiction in those scenarios. To be dead is to have biologically died. This uncontroversially involves assuming room temperature, ceasing to breathe, one’s heart stopping, the cessation of brain activity, the cessation of any bodily activity. To die to to undergo all of that. Now if a human being just is a living biological organism or a certain highly organized physical object, then perhaps to be all the way, irretrievably dead, is to have ceased to exist. This is what all naturalists hold (roughly: atheists who believe that all there is is what a perfect science would describe). Interestingly, some Christians hold this too; some Christians, and even some prominent Christian philosophers like Peter van Inwagen and Trenton Merricks, are materialists about human beings. A materialist needn’t necessarily hold that dying is ceasing to exist – it depends which physical object a human self is! But if the human self is the big, macro-object that weighs 200 lbs. (or whatever) and which functions in a certain way, then if that’s what you are, dying is (or soon leads to) ceasing to exist. But consider a naturalist who thinks that a human self just is a certain living animal. When he says that, e.g. Carl Sagan has died, he is assuming that Sagan thereby ceased to exist. But “death” has a common meaning, and even though, in this naturalist’s view, death implies ceasing to exist, arguably the word doesn’t mean that, even when he uses it. In sum, it is a philosophical question whether or not to die is to cease to exist, but all sides should agree on the meaning of the word “death”
As Buzzard notes, the term gennao is used far outside of the context of biological procreation. One may become a parent via adoption, as he notes. (pp. 260-1, n. 14) But then, he should not say that “one who is begotten is by definition not as old as the one who begets him.” (p. 261, n. 14) To the contrary: suppose a mentally handicapped person in is 80s is legally adopted by a couple in their 30s. This scenario involves no contradiction, and so, what Buzzard says here is mistaken, in my view.
But does it hold if we stick to literal, not merely legal begetting? Not obviously – given the Abe/Sarah/Isaac scenario above.
I would have to deny, then, then gennao, even in a biological context, obviously implies a bringing into existence. Likewise, I disagree when he says that
To “beget” means in English to bring into existence, to cause to come into existence. (p. 209)
I conclude that Mr. Buzzard argues too aggressively, from an alleged definition of a word.
But there is a better way – next post.
Print 
PDF
Marg,
How in the world would God express the idea that he brought a Son into existence? You tell us. What would he have to say?
What do you say about God being the father of Adam? Is that figurative or literal? Please say clearly.
But you are missing also the conception by Mary. Do you not know that a conception means the beginning, the coming into existence of a person?
So you are stuck.
Just admit that the Son of God was conceived and thus began to exist. Or is this conceiving of Jesus figurative? If so what does it mean in terms of history?
Dale, it might be of interest to note that God CREATED Adam. We are told that six times in Genesis 1 and 5.
We are NEVER told that Adam was “begotten”. He is the CREATED son of God, not the BEGOTTEN son of God.
Conversely, we read that Jesus was BEGOTTEN by God, but we NEVER read that he was CREATED.
Those statements can be tested. They are falsifiable. If they are wrong, I would appreciate correction.
Marge,
May I suggest that you are making a quite unnecessary and bit tiring objection!
You agree that God BEGAT the Son (that is what the text says) but you then say that “beget” means sex from a man and so in the case of God, beget is figurative! Yes, but then you must tell us what does it mean for GOD (not a man) to BEGET? You must supply your meaning to make us see what you mean.
The text says equally that Mary conceived and surely you know that at a conception a new person begins to exist who did not exist before. So then the conception means the beginning of a new person, the Son of God. Then the begetting must also mean that too, granted that sex is nothing to do with it.
This is crucial, since conception/begetting means the beginning of a new person. It is not the coming of an already existing person, into the womb of Mary.
That would be completely a different sort of person.
So will you accept that Matt and Luke describe the beginning of a new person, in the womb.
The point of this whole discussion is that we identify the real Son of God, Christ, not an imagined one.
In hope of the Kingdom.
Andy, I think you were planning to study what is said about Melchizedek. I don’t want you to skip your own personal study (and I know you won’t!!) but I want to look again at what is said about him in Hebrews 7:1-3.
For one thing, he is obviously a type – a picture – of the Son of God. So how does this picture emerge?
For one thing, he was the King of righteusness (that’s the meaning of his name). Also, his title was King of Salem, which means king of peace.
No one will question that those two things will characterize the kingdom of the Messiah.
Verse 3 makes 7 other assertions, all of which seem to be based on what is MISSING from the narrative in Genesis. So (the author says) Melchizedek was
without father
without mother
without genealogy
without beginning of days
without end of life
having been MADE LIKE unto the Son of God
remains a priest in perpetuity.
No father; no mother; no genealogy. Melchizedek was actually priest of the Most High before Levi was even born. So his priesthood takes precedence over the levitical priesthood.
And because there is no record of his birth and no record of his death, Melchizedec is pictured as having no beginning of days nor end of life.
So, according to the picture drawn for us, he always was and always will be (typically) priest of the Most High – priest in perpetuity.
I conclude that what Melchizedek was in type, the Son of God is in reality.
All of this makes perfect sense, IF Samuel Clarke was right.
Marg
Yes, but begetting is procreating and so it is a form of creation. One can look this up in any dictionary
And Luke replies to you by saying that Isaac was OF Abraham, and Adam was OF God. In both cases we understand it easily.
So what is your point, since begetting means procreating?
You are right of course that Adam did not come from a womb of a mother.
But Jesus is described as having been “begotten” by God.
So tell us what YOU mean by beget in the case of Jesus.
Then we will understand.
In Isa 45:18 what is the difference between creating and forming. Then look in Isa 49;5 what is “forming from the womb”.
In Gen 2:7 man was formed and in 5:1 man was created. What is the difference?
Please explain what is meant by the conception of a person in the womb.
Is this or is it not the beginning of the existence of a new person?
No one has commented on the passages in the synoptics that imply someone much more than we would expect an ordinary human to be. If, as Hebrews 10:5 suggests, the human body miraculously conceived in Mary was the body prepared by God for his Son when he came into the world, then these passages make sense.
One statement that Matthew, Mark and Luke all record is this one:
The speaker of such words must either be a lunatic (which Jesus definitely was not), or else he knew that his words were literally true.
And if he knew that his words were literally true, he was obviously not afraid of failure.
All three of them also record his summation of the law (Luke indirectly). I will quote from Mark 12:29-33, because it is the fullest and clearest account:
Did Jesus actually fulfill the law as thus described by him?
There was obviously no doubt in his mind. He came to fulfill the law; and he knew he WOULD fulfill it, and that his words would never pass away.
I would go a step further, and add that he had ALWAYS loved the Lord his God totally, had ALWAYS delighted to do his Father’s will; and the possibility that he would change character completely did not exist.
Marg
Yes, I entirely agree about the supreme authority of Jesus. But are you now saying that Heb. 10:5 is to explain the begetting and conception of Jesus in Matt and Luke? Do Matt and Luke want us to believe that only a body not a person was there in the womb?
I think we agreed that in the gospels the Son of God comes into existence and therefore is not in existence before that.
It is impossible to imagine anything else, after the words of the angels to Mary and Joseph, and major scholarship as we know, confirms my point here.
The creative, begetting work of God in Mary leads to the simple fact that the Messiah came into existence, not just a body!
The Son of God is the referent in Matt and Luke.
People misread Heb 5:10 (a single verse, not the extended clear info of Matt and Luke1) to think that Jesus entered a body! That is not the idea at all.
The writer is citing a psalm which says “I have come to do your will.” You have to examine the quotes here carefully, some from the LXX [Greek version of the OT]. The context is about the “ears being dug”.
This concept is about obedience, listening to what God say, a great lesson for us all.
Jesus supremely listened to what God told him and did the will of God perfectly. We are to do the will of God in obedience, Heb. 5:9 should be posted on every refrigerator!
The word body, in Hebrew thinking often means the whole person. Just as we say anybody and nobody. in Rom 12 do we really think it means “offer you body” and not your self!
A body prepared in Hebrews is a perfectly submitted human being as was Jesus, who did the will of his Father.
The key to good Bible study is to listen to what the angels told Mary and Joseph about the identity of Jesus and then believe it.
Zechariah did not quite do that, and suffered!
“To come into the world” means to be born! People read all sorts of wrong ideas into this easy phrase.
It does not mean you existed before you began to exist!
Would you please identify the comment where I “agreed” to any such thing?