Only Begotten Son of God
Son of God—what a wealth of glorious truth there is in that name of our Saviour! Everything else we believe about Him depends on the truth of that name. If He is not the only begotten Son of God, He is nothing to us.
This name belongs to the biblical truth that Jesus Christ is God, equal in all things to the Father. Though many today deny it, even the unbelieving Jews of Jesus’ day understood it that way. When He called Himself the Son of God, they took up stones to kill Him for blasphemy (John 10:33).
The truth that Jesus is God is often compromised by modern Bible versions. Not only do they “retranslate” many important verses such as I Timothy 3:16, so that they make no reference to Christ’s divinity, but they also retranslate this name, usually as “only son” (e.g., the Revised Version and Revised Standard Version). The New International Version translates it as “one and only Son,” something that is not even true! Jesus is not the one and only Son of God, but the only begotten Son—we too are sons of God, though we are not natural sons. We are sons adopted by grace for His sake.
That is another aspect of the great truth that Jesus is God’s Son: His sonship is the basis and reason of ours. For this reason He is also called the “firstborn” (Heb. 12:23) and “firstbegotten” (Heb. 1:6).
In Scripture the “firstborn” is the one who opens the womb (Ex. 13:2, etc.). As firstborn in the family of God, Jesus is the one who opens the way out of the womb of death and the grave for all His brethren when they are reborn into God’s family as sons and daughters. Without Him, we would be like children brought to the birth with no power to bring forth. This is also why the firstborn was specially dedicated to God in the Old Testament (Ex. 13:2).
To return to the name only begotten Son, we must understand not only that “only begotten Son” is an exact and literal translation of the Greek, but also that it is THE name by which the church of Christ has defended the truth of His divinity against all comers. It ought not therefore to be tampered with by those who claim to be retranslating the word of God, even if their efforts were legitimate. We believe they are not.
Like the other names of Christ, however, this is not a name that can be confessed abstractly. The only way for me or you to confess it is to say by it that the only begotten Son of God is “my God.” To say that He is “my God” is to find in His divinity, as it is uniquely expressed in this name, a sure foundation for believing in Him and hoping in His mercy. Is He your God? Rev. Ron Hanko
The Resurrection From the Dead
“And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2).
The question submitted is a thought-provoking one: Why does the text use the word “many”?
The implication is obvious. The bodily resurrection from the dead includes everyone, yet the text speaks of “many,” a word that might suggest that not all shall rise. Why, then, the word “many”?
I appreciate questions of this sort. They give evidence of careful and thoughtful study of Scripture, the kind of study that is crucial to using the Scriptures as a lamp to our feet and a light on our path.
The question has also attracted the attention of commentators and various solutions have been offered over the years. Some have argued on the basis of this passage that we must look to two different resurrections. This is generally the view of premillennialists, though it is rejected by the majority of commentators. Others have said that although the word “many” is used, “many” in fact means “all.” On that reading, the text teaches a general and universal resurrection despite the word “many.”
One commentator found support for this in the words of the Lord Jesus in John 5:28-29, which he regarded as a quotation of Daniel 12 and a commentary on it: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Calvin agrees: “The word many seems here clearly put for all, and this is not to be considered as at all absurd.”
Other commentators reject this interpretation and prefer to keep the word “many” in its natural sense. They connect verse 2 with verse 1, which speaks of terrible persecution, and they limit the “many” of verse 2 to those who die during that period of trouble: “a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time.” Although there is disagreement about whether the persecution in verse 1 refers to the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes—the Old Testament picture of antichrist—or to the persecution at the end of time, these commentators restrict the “many” to those who die in that persecution. Edward Young paraphrases the verses this way: “At the time of this persecution many shall fall, but thy people shall be delivered. Likewise from the numbers of those who are asleep in the grave many (i.e., those who died during the tribulation) shall arise. Of these some shall arise to life and some to reproach.”
That interpretation does not strike me as sound. If the reference is only to those who die during the time of persecution, why does verse 2 speak of the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked? There seems to be no good answer to that.
While there is room for disagreement on this question, it is better to take the “many” as referring to “all,” and there are sound reasons for doing so. No one denies that the resurrection in verse 2 is the final resurrection at the coming of Christ. That resurrection is general, including the wicked, who are raised with a body adapted to eternity in hell, and the righteous, whose bodies are raised in glory, made like to the body of Christ.
There are also other places in Scripture where “many” plainly means “all.” One decisive example is Romans 5:19: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” The reference is to Adam, by whose sin all men became sinners, yet the word used is “many.” So also in Daniel 12:2.
The word “many” is used instead of “all” because the emphasis falls on the vast number of those who are raised. “Many” conveys that sense of an enormous host more readily than “all.”
Finally, and we must not miss this, the prophet’s word is meant as comfort to God’s persecuted saints. They are hard-pressed in the world, beset by countless enemies, killed all the day long, and counted as sheep for the slaughter. It can seem as if their oppressors and murderers have the victory. But God delivers His church: “at that time thy people shall be delivered …” (1). That deliverance is in the resurrection when, though all are raised, some are raised to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Then the cause of the righteous will be completely vindicated.
To that glorious day we look forward.
Prof. Herman Hanko
Should Our Love Be Selective?
About Luke 10:27 someone has asked, “How can God command us to love our neighbour (that is, all men) if He Himself is selective in His love?” The parallel passage to Luke 10:27, Matthew 5:43-48, was explained in volume II, no. 14 of the News. Regarding Luke 10:27 and the love of God, the following:
There are arguments often made to prove that God loves everyone, including the reprobate wicked. One argument is that when Scripture commands us to love our neighbour, this involves loving those who may be reprobate since we cannot distinguish elect from reprobate. Because we are to love without discrimination, God must also, for we are commanded to love after His example.
Another form of the argument is that if we are to love after God’s example, we must love the same persons He does. Since we are commanded to love without discrimination, this must mean that God also loves both elect and reprobate.
Both arguments are fallacious. Scripture commands us to love indiscriminately—without attempting to determine whether a person is elect or reprobate—even though God’s love is discriminating. That God’s love is discriminating is plain from the fact that the word “love” is never used in Scripture to refer to the reprobate wicked. That we are commanded to love because we cannot discriminate is also the clear teaching of Scripture. A good example is I Corinthians 7:16, where a believing wife or husband is commanded to remain with, and love, an unbelieving partner because he or she does not know whether they will be used for the salvation of that person.
Loving after the example of God, therefore, does not mean that our love may discriminate as His does, or that His love is indiscriminate as ours is. The point in these passages is that we must love our enemies because God loves His enemies. That we love all our enemies and God does not makes no difference to the calling.
Nor does loving after God’s example mean that we must love the same persons He does, or that He loves the same persons we do. An example will help: as a father I love my children and as a minister I must be an example of that love to the members of my congregation. That does not mean that, if they follow my example, they must love the same persons I do.
There is no ground in this passage for a universal love of God. Rev. Ron Hanko
