S
Solus_Christus
Guest
Heh! Whoops! Minor blunder there. Thanks for the correction.And by the way, theotokos, means “God-bearer”…but I know what you meant.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I suspect you are researching for your next thread.Heh! Whoops! Minor blunder there. Thanks for the correction.
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
I see how it can appear that way, but that is not what I am trying to do. There are few experts with his credentials and breadth of knowledge. When most scholars (including many Catholic) want to get at the meaning of the Greek text they turn to Thayer. But even if we don’t compare credentials, are there any Greek scholars who contest the customary usage of these two words? I am not saying there are not, I am just not aware of any, and if there are any I would be interested in knowing about them.Sort of a “my Greek scholar can beat up your Greek scholar” kind of a thing?
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
Once again, this argument might work well for the passage in Matthew, but is doubtful for Luke’s usage. Even if Luke did obtain his information from Mary, the Jewish significance of firstborn would have been lost on his Gentile recipients.
Additionally, if the Marian doctrines are true, then Christ being Mary’s only begotten would have been of greater significance to the Christian recipients of Luke’s gospel than the legal and cultic significance of firstborn in the Jewish context.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m gonna have to take a pass here…I recently moved into a new home, and all my books are still packed in boxes at a storage place nearby.
Just a curiosity…Wikipedia says that Thayer’s work has been eclipsed by more modern scholarship. Is that correct?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henry_Thayer
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
Based on this response I think it is safe to say that even though, by your own admission, you are not a Greek scholar, you take issue with Thayer. No?
(emphasis added)
If Thayer is wrong, then we should be able to find Isaac referred to as protokos somewhere in the Old Testament if we look to the LXX. Or why even limit it to Isaac. Are there any other examples you can point to of monogenes being referred to as protokos in the NT or LXX?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And yet, as Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch point out in their notes on the Gospel of Luke found in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “Luke’s Gospel tell us more abou tthe Mother of Jesus than any other book in the New Testament…The more we delve into Luke’s narrative, the more we appreciate the way in which Luke tells us the story of Mary.”
Luke draws the careful reader’s attention to Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, for example.
Not something the Gentile reader would likely pick up on…but there it is.
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
I was not aware of that. I would be willing to go out on a limb, however, and venture that prior to this thread you were familiar with Thayer’s name. But were you familiar with Gustav Adolf Deissmann? I know I wasn’t. I cannot help but think the article may be a bit strongly worded. I do not have access to Deissman’s work, but if anyone does I would be interested in what he might have to say about the Greek words being discussed. Anyone?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No…well, maybe. Thayer’s assertion holds true when the purpose of making the distinction concerning birth rights is relevant - and it usually is. But I’m saying that while Abraham would have been troubled to lose even one son among many, to lose his ONLY son, his heir, would have been a crushing blow given the advanced age of his wife, Sarah. So, I’m speculating that monogenes tells us something more than protokos would in this passage.
I’m kinda losing track of the references, here, but weren’t you citing a NT use of the word monogenes being used in reference to Isaac in Heb.? I thought that was your whole point.
The author of Hebrews calls Isaac monogenes instead of protokos to drive home the magnitude of the sacrifice Abraham was willing to make. IMHO, anyhoo.
Gee, without my Strong’s I’m lost!
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Just throwing this out there…after a Google search I found this:
According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is “pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship.” This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten son” (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.
The second definition is “pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind.” This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God’s Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God’s sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.
Read more: gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html#ixzz2cBcMkAfa
+++
So, the non-Catholic author of the passages above agrees with yours truly that the uniqueness of the relationship between Abraham and Isaac justifies the use of monogenes in the Letter to the Hebrews.
This is being put together on the fly, Solus, but I think my instincts are right about this.
According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is “pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship.” This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten son” (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.
The second definition is “pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind.” This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God’s Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God’s sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.
Read more: gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html#ixzz2cBcMkAfa
+++
So, the non-Catholic author of the passages above agrees with yours truly that the uniqueness of the relationship between Abraham and Isaac justifies the use of monogenes in the Letter to the Hebrews.
This is being put together on the fly, Solus, but I think my instincts are right about this.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And now, it is time to address this question.
Jesus did not need to inherit the tools of his father, Joseph. He needed to inherit the throne of his father, David.
Luke 1:31-33 (NIV)
31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
Jesus inherits David’s throne, and Mary becomes Queen Mother. Support for the principle of the Queen Mother in the House of David is found clearly in the following passages:
1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.
Since Solomon had MANY wives, none of them would be queen. In fact, it was his mother that sat on the throne. This idea is also evident in the book of Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 13:18
18 Say to the king and to the queen mother, “Come down from your thrones, for your glorious crowns will fall from your heads.”
From these two passages, we can see that the mother of the king held the title of Queen in the Davidic kingdom. We also know that Mary is the Queen of Heaven from the following:
Revelation 12:1-2
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
Since the writer goes on to say that the woman gave birth to a son who would rule the nations, we can conclude that the woman wearing the crown in heaven is the Mother of Jesus, Mary.
Additionally, Jesus establishes Peter as His royal steward for He gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,
Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”
In ancient times, the king would choose a Royal Steward or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
But that is for another thread!
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Actually, I was just asking *you *if *you *were familiar with all this.
What do I know about this stuff?
That said, I think the reasoning behind my argument for the use of monogenes is sound and the Googled article I posted seems to support my claim.
D
Doug_S
Guest
We also know that Mary is the Queen of Heaven from the following:
Revelation 12:1-2
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
Since the writer goes on to say that the woman gave birth to a son who would rule the nations, we can conclude that the woman wearing the crown in heaven is the Mother of Jesus, Mary.
The preceding is from post #91 Randy Carson.
Randy,
This is not referring to Mary. The woman is symbolic for the nation of Isreal. I had to read all of Rev12 and concluded that it could not be referring to Mary. I did have to look in my commentary to confirm my suspicions. I use a Wiersby commentary and the commentary that is in my Catholic Bible. When they are in line with each other I feel pretty confident in the outcome. One other thing to think about. How can Mary be the Mother of God when he preexisted creation? It seems that he is the mother of Christ the man but she can’t be the mother of Christ our God!
Peace be with you!
Revelation 12:1-2
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
Since the writer goes on to say that the woman gave birth to a son who would rule the nations, we can conclude that the woman wearing the crown in heaven is the Mother of Jesus, Mary.
The preceding is from post #91 Randy Carson.
Randy,
This is not referring to Mary. The woman is symbolic for the nation of Isreal. I had to read all of Rev12 and concluded that it could not be referring to Mary. I did have to look in my commentary to confirm my suspicions. I use a Wiersby commentary and the commentary that is in my Catholic Bible. When they are in line with each other I feel pretty confident in the outcome. One other thing to think about. How can Mary be the Mother of God when he preexisted creation? It seems that he is the mother of Christ the man but she can’t be the mother of Christ our God!
Peace be with you!
- Status