 |  |
"Glory as of an only begotten from a father."
The reader will find this noted in the R.V. margin, and in such revised translations as
those of Rotherham, Darby, and Cunningham. The Apostle's intention seems to be:
"We beheld His glory, a glory such as one would associate with one who was an only
begotten of a father."
The word "father", while ultimately referring to God Himself, is used here in a general
sense. The glory that was beheld by the wondering disciples was not the "glory" which
the Saviour "had" with the Father "before the world was" (John 17: 5), for that glory,
which is yet to be unveiled and manifested (John 17: 24), was, while the Saviour lived
here and bore the likeness of sinful flesh, tempered and veiled. The "glory" referred to
by the Apostle here in John 1: 14 is rather the kind of glory that is compatible with the
status of being an only begotten one of a father. He Who is Himself God, and Who had
made the world, humbles Himself, and speaks of Himself as "The Sent One". He
acknowledges that "My Father is greater than I", and that as "the Son" He has received
power and authority from the Father. None of these acknowledgments, of course, in any
way touch His Deity; they merely speak of the humble place that He was pleased to take
when He was "made flesh".
We have no wish to take any part in the controversy concerning the Lord's Sonship
that is wrecking one evangelical witness. The very terms used in this controversy are
themselves unscriptural. Nowhere does Scripture say: "In the beginning was the Son."
Only when the Word was made flesh, does His sonship appear. Such phrases, therefore,
as the "Eternal Generations of the Son" we cannot regard as being scripturally sound.
The words "The only begotten", wherever they are used apart from Christ, always
refer to a son or a daughter who has been begotten by a father. The words are used of
Isaac (Heb. 11: 17), of the only son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7: 12), of the only
daughter of Jairus (Luke 8: 42), and of the man whose only child was possessed of an
evil spirit (Luke 9: 48). There is nothing unusual about the word monogenes. If we
remove the word for "only" we have genes, which is intimately related to the words
translated "begetting" (Matt. 1: 2), "born" (Matt. 1: 16), and "generation" (Matt. 1: 1). If
the "generation", the "birth", the "begetting" of Jesus Christ are thus attested by
Scripture, who are we to put our hands to save the Ark of His Deity, by robbing Him of
the glory of His perfect manhood and sonship?
We have said little about the virgin birth, for we are following the line of teaching
given by John, but, lest any should misconstrue our silence, we affirm in passing our
unwavering faith in the testimony of those Scriptures that insist upon the supernatural
conception of the Son of God, His virgin birth and His untainted manhood.
A day is coming, when the Son shall be subject unto Him that subjected all things
under Him, "that God may be all in all". We have no right here to read "that the Father
may be all in all" for we must remember John's statement that "The Word was God".