Can God have an Only begotten daugher?

[Doves411]

Hi all,

I posted this thread in the Philsophy thread but I think it might be more appropriate here in Sacred Theology.

In Scripture, it is stated many times that Jesus is God’s “Only Begotten Son”. Does that mean Only Begotten CHILD or just Son? It seems to imply a possibility of a daughter…

The Greek word “Monogenes” (meaning only begotten/only offspring/ only kind) can be used as either a noun or and adjective. It seems weird to me that it is used in Scripture as an adjective for the word “Son”.

Why not refer to Jesus as God’s Monogenes rather than His Monogenes Son? Seems confusing to me and seems like it leaves the possibility open to the begetting of a daughter

I don’t think that will happen but I was just wondering if I’m misinterpretting the Greek words here?

Thanks!

 

[Doves411]

I don’t see why you think is odd. Do you have children? When you talk about your children do you refer to them as “offspring”. How many parents do you hear talking about their son/ daughter saying: oh I went to my offspring’s recital today, I have to drive my offspring to the soccer game, or my offspring got sick yesterday? Never. I don’t see it as odd because is not the way people normally talk. In all case the use of monogenes would be odd.

I believe the word “Monogenes” is used as a noun in other parts of the Bible though. To me, it’s obvious that Jesus is the SON of God, so why would God restate it as this is my Only Begotten Son…? Why not say, He’s my Only Begotten Child? The only Child I will ever beget? i.e.: Monogenes

By the way, I am in NO WAY advocating gender neutrality in Biblical language here. I am just legitimately confused and was wondering if anyone knew of some sources I could read to clarify my confusion…?

 

[SonCatcher]

I believe the word “Monogenes” is used as a noun in other parts of the Bible though. To me, it’s obvious that Jesus is the SON of God, so why would God restate it as this is my Only Begotten Son…? Why not say, He’s my Only Begotten Child? The only Child I will ever beget? i.e.: Monogenes

By the way, I am in NO WAY advocating gender neutrality in Biblical language here. I am just legitimately confused and was wondering if anyone knew of some sources I could read to clarify my confusion…?

The legal situation of the time might help with that: a son is an heir according to legal custom at the time while a daughter is not.

 

[marymary1975]

I believe the word “Monogenes” is used as a noun in other parts of the Bible though. To me, it’s obvious that Jesus is the SON of God, so why would God restate it as this is my Only Begotten Son…? Why not say, He’s my Only Begotten Child? The only Child I will ever beget? i.e.: Monogenes

By the way, I am in NO WAY advocating gender neutrality in Biblical language here. I am just legitimately confused and was wondering if anyone knew of some sources I could read to clarify my confusion…?

I think Soncatcher brings a very good point. To resemble humanity and to give a more personal image. The word monogenes is more impersonal. Child/offspring is more impersonal and that is why people usually don’t refer to their own kids as offspring. Is like the fetus v baby thing, baby brings more humanity while fetus is more impersonal and that is why pro abortion people use fetus. If you want to bring a more human picture to the reader then you want to use son. And another good point brought up by SonCatcher: the legal implications of the title at that time.

 

[Doves411]

The legal situation of the time might help with that: a son is an heir according to legal custom at the time while a daughter is not.

So it would be a moot point to state that God may beget a daughter because a daughter would not inherit the Kingdom anyway?

 

[TomD123]

So basically you guys are saying theoretically God could have sent Jesus as a woman but chose to send him as a male. Therefore there is no female nature in God but only male (cuz Jesus is male and always was male from the beginning cuz he has a male soul). So God will not send a ‘begotten daughter’ since there is no female nature in God?

So in Scripture, it is stated as only Begotten Son rather than ‘child’ because it’s pointless to state that God might beget a daughter because God has no female nature?

am I close?

• yes theoretically God the Son couldve become incarnate as a woman.
• There is no male or female nature in God. God is His nature and His nature is pure spirit neither male nor female.
• Jesus is not always male from the beginning and there is no “male soul.” God the Son exists from the beginning as pure spirit. The Human nature which God the Son took on exists since the incarnation. The human nature of God the Son is not a separate person or entity, but a separate nature which is united in one person God the Son since the incarnation but not from all of eternity

So it would be a moot point to state that God may beget a daughter because a daughter would not inherit the Kingdom anyway?

I think one thing that needs to be clear is that God isn’t begetting Jesus as a man. God created Jesus’ human nature…including his masculinity. The Father begets the Son from all of eternity…this does not involve gender in any way. The begetting part is not an act of God’s will…nor does it take place in time. The begetting of the Son does not involve gender because it involves no humanity or physicality…only the spiritual person of the Son, a bearer of the Divine nature of God (which is one and the same as the Father’s divine nature).

Hope this is clear and helpful. I suggest checking out the Baltimore Catechism

 

[mattelliott]

Doves, you seem to be under the impression that the description of the Son as “son” excludes the feminine principle or worse, implies its inferiority. But as many people have already said, God in his own nature is beyond gender. He is not even a mix of male and female, but something else entirely. Male and female are human categories, but the Son is genderless, just as the Father is, even though we call him the Father.

The reason we do this is so we can get a certain point clear-- God the Father is the initiator, who created the world from nothing. So in his creative act he exercises a power which in traditional symbolism is considered masculine. Other religious systems have envisioned God as a mother who gives birth to the world, but for us this would imply that God is at the whim of some other force that “impregnates” him, and that the world came “from” him. But we believe the world came from nothing, by God’s will. So we call the First Person of God by a male title, Father, to emphasize his sovereignty in creation and his separation from it.

The same goes for the Son. Traditionally, the firstborn son is the inheritor of his father’s possessions, and the Son’s role as Lord, too, is a traditionally masculine role. It is in this sense that the Second Person of God is called “Son”.

The point is that these words describe the way these Persons act, not anything intrinsic to their genderless nature. Now you could argue this language is outdated, and perhaps it is, but only compared to the standards of the world. Within Christian theology these terms have different meanings. Perhaps it would be more politically correct to describe the Trinity as “the Begetter, the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit,” but that’s pretty awkward if you ask me.

 

[NHInsider]

I suppose because Jesus was male.

I don’t think the Apostles were worrying about someone coming along and claiming to be Jesus’ divine half-sister. They were aware, because it had already begun before the end of the life of John, that some would claim He wasn’t truly human.

Sally

 

[Doves411]

I think I found the answer you guys. It was a translation error.

A lot of times in the Bible that Jesus is “Monogenes uios” meaning Only Begotten Son. However, I found in John 1:18, Jesus is referred to in some manuscripts as “Monogenes theos” meaning “Only Begotten God.”

So this shows that there is Only One Begotten God who is the Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[Doves411]

Doves, you seem to be under the impression that the description of the Son as “son” excludes the feminine principle or worse, implies its inferiority. But as many people have already said, God in his own nature is beyond gender. He is not even a mix of male and female, but something else entirely. Male and female are human categories, but the Son is genderless, just as the Father is, even though we call him the Father.

The reason we do this is so we can get a certain point clear-- God the Father is the initiator, who created the world from nothing. So in his creative act he exercises a power which in traditional symbolism is considered masculine. Other religious systems have envisioned God as a mother who gives birth to the world, but for us this would imply that God is at the whim of some other force that “impregnates” him, and that the world came “from” him. But we believe the world came from nothing, by God’s will. So we call the First Person of God by a male title, Father, to emphasize his sovereignty in creation and his separation from it.

The same goes for the Son. Traditionally, the firstborn son is the inheritor of his father’s possessions, and the Son’s role as Lord, too, is a traditionally masculine role. It is in this sense that the Second Person of God is called “Son”.

The point is that these words describe the way these Persons act, not anything intrinsic to their genderless nature. Now you could argue this language is outdated, and perhaps it is, but only compared to the standards of the world. Within Christian theology these terms have different meanings. Perhaps it would be more politically correct to describe the Trinity as “the Begetter, the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit,” but that’s pretty awkward if you ask me.

So are you saying that regardless of gender there is only one “offspring” of God and the term “Son” is used for us humans to better understand the dynamics of the Trinity?

Yeah I don’t like the whole genderless descriptions of God, but they can make it easier to understand sometimes? I still don’t think we should switch to using them though.

 

[Doves411]

• yes theoretically God the Son couldve become incarnate as a woman.
• There is no male or female nature in God. God is His nature and His nature is pure spirit neither male nor female.
• Jesus is not always male from the beginning and there is no “male soul.” God the Son exists from the beginning as pure spirit. The Human nature which God the Son took on exists since the incarnation. The human nature of God the Son is not a separate person or entity, but a separate nature which is united in one person God the Son since the incarnation but not from all of eternity

I think one thing that needs to be clear is that God isn’t begetting Jesus as a man. God created Jesus’ human nature…including his masculinity. The Father begets the Son from all of eternity…this does not involve gender in any way. The begetting part is not an act of God’s will…nor does it take place in time. The begetting of the Son does not involve gender because it involves no humanity or physicality…only the spiritual person of the Son, a bearer of the Divine nature of God (which is one and the same as the Father’s divine nature).

Hope this is clear and helpful. I suggest checking out the Baltimore Catechism

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut Tom, I’ll read the Baltimore Catechism

 

[Doves411]

I suppose because Jesus was male.

I don’t think the Apostles were worrying about someone coming along and claiming to be Jesus’ divine half-sister. They were aware, because it had already begun before the end of the life of John, that some would claim He wasn’t truly human.

Sally

Do you have any sources I could read?

 

[devoutchristian]

No. God is by nature masculine even though the divine nature is genderless. Therefore he could not adopt a female nature.

 

[Robyn_p]

I think there are two issues at play here…first is the issue of God the Son as a person and then God the Son incarnate.

Check out the Baltimore Catechism online, that might be helpful for some clarification. I’ll just offer a few points.

First, God exists as one being in a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each are equal because each is fully the One true God eternal and infinite. Each is pure spirit because each is equally the one true God who is spiritual and non physical.
This means that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not male or female.

Second, God the Son is not some separate entity who began to exist. God the Son exists from all eternity with God the Father. God the Son is equally God as God the Father. God the Son we say was “begotten not made” meaning he was more generated from the Father than willfully created. The Father had a choice in creating us, He naturally generated the Son by necessity not by choice. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the mutual love of Father and Son. Again, check out the Baltimore catechism, any addition (maybe 4 is the best) through a google search.

Third, God the Son (who is eternally begotten of the Father…genderless) became man through the incarnation. This means He took on a created human nature. God the Son is still eternally begotten of the Father however he took on a human nature through Mary as other humans do. God the Son exists as one person however He has two separate natures: The human nature (received from Mary) and the Divine Nature (which he posesses from eternity as does the Father and Holy Ghost)

Fourth, the human nature of God the Son is a male human nature because God chose to make it that way. He had a choice given that the human nature of Jesus was created in time. God could have taken on a woman’s nature however chose to not become a woman, he became a male human being. God the Son’s Divine nature (eternally begotten of the Father) is genderless though.

God couldn’t have begotten a daughter, as the begetting part is eternal and spiritual. God could have created a female human nature to become incarnate in however He did not

Great explanation! The bolded part is especially helpful.

OP

The Trinity really is the deepest mystery of our faith. I highly recommend a book called “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed. It explains the the Blessed Trinity so clearly, which before I read that book I didn’t think was possible. It might help, along with the Baltimore Catechism Tom recommended, to clear up any confusion you might still have

 

[Doves411]

No. God is by nature masculine even though the divine nature is genderless. Therefore he could not adopt a female nature.

I’m sorry I don’t understand. How does God have a masculine nature even though He is genderless?

Could you elaborate? If you could provide me with sources I would greatly appreciate it

 

[Doves411]

Great explanation! The bolded part is especially helpful.

OP

The Trinity really is the deepest mystery of our faith. I highly recommend a book called “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed. It explains the the Blessed Trinity so clearly, which before I read that book I didn’t think was possible. It might help, along with the Baltimore Catechism Tom recommended, to clear up any confusion you might still have

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Robyn!

God Bless you!

 

[po18guy]

If so, He has chosen not to reveal it to mankind. As to sources, well, the circumcision of Jesus in Luke 2 is a good place to start. As well, Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2 have something to say about Christ’s gender. This all seems to imply that Jesus was male…

As well, using a Greek dictionary to interpret terms that were spoken in Aramaic or ancient Hebrew will lead to error.

 

[devoutchristian]

I’m sorry I don’t understand. How does God have a masculine nature even though He is genderless?

Could you elaborate? If you could provide me with sources I would greatly appreciate it

Gender is per se a quality that is distinct to physical creatures. Whereas masculinity (as it relates to nature) is a quality regarding how a being behaves, by nature. For instance, the form of sacrificial love demonstrated by God is masculine in nature.

 

[devoutchristian]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8279

 

[Doves411]

Gender is per se a quality that is distinct to physical creatures. Whereas masculinity (as it relates to nature) is a quality regarding how a being behaves, by nature. For instance, the form of sacrificial love demonstrated by God is masculine in nature.

I had just read that article before I opened your link!

Okay that makes more sense. So God has no gender because He is spirit, however, his nature is masculine. Since He is masculine in spirit, He became Man ( not woman) in the Flesh as Jesus Christ. Am I understanding this correctly?

Yeah I don’t like the whole “political correctness” when referring to God. He told us to refer to Him as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit so that’s how I’m going to refer to Him.