The Upper Register

Μονογενής in the Church Fathers: A Response to Kevin Giles, Part 5

The Biblical Warrant for Eternal Generation According to the Church Fathers

We have seen that Giles is wrong when he claims that μονογενής meant “unique” and not “only begotten” in the writings of the fourth-century Greek-speaking fathers and in the Nicene Creed. But Giles makes another claim as well. He claims the Greek-speaking fathers “do not use [μονογενής] or the texts in which it is found as textual support for the eternal generation of the Son” (The Eternal Generation of the Son, p. 81 n44).

In this post, which will be my last in this series, I want to show that the church fathers frequently quoted John 1:14 (“glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father”) and 1:18 (“the only begotten God/Son who is in the Father’s bosom”) as proof that the Son is begotten of the Father. For example, in one of his works, Athanasius is arguing against the Arians with the classic distinction that the Son is “begotten, not made.” Athanasius sees a massive distinction between a creature made by God and an offspring eternally begotten of God’s own essence. In the course of his argument, Athanasius quotes the three standard OT proof texts that the Son is begotten—Ps 110:3 (109:3 LXX); Ps 2:7; Prov 8:25—and then right after these he concludes by quoting John 1:18 (Defense of the Nicene Definition §13; NPNF2 4.158). Cyril of Jerusalem does much the same thing, quoting Ps 2:7 and 110:3, followed immediately by three of the μονογενής passages in John’s Gospel (3:16, 18; 1:14) (Catechetical Lectures 11.5-6; NPNF2 7.65-66).

I fully acknowledge that the church fathers didn’t hang eternal generation solely on the Johannine μονογενής. I’ve already mentioned the three OT verses (in the Old Greek) that were important to them because they occur in Christologically significant passages and use the verb γεννάω (“beget”) (Pss 2:7; 110:3 [109:3 LXX]; Prov 8:25). There were also several New Testament texts outside of the Johannine μονογενής texts that the church fathers appealed to, most notably the following: “As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself” (John 5:26 ESV); “All that the Father has is mine” (John 16:15 ESV); and “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb 1:3 ESV). The second one (John 16:15) was used especially by Athanasius, who reasoned that the Father has everlastingness, eternity, and immortality, and if the Father has given “all” that he has to the Son, then the Son must possess these things as well (In Illud: Omnia, etc. [NPNF2 4.87-90]; Against the Arians 3.35-36 [NPNF2 4.413]). Among modern exegetes who believe in eternal generation, John 5:26 is rightly viewed as having probative force, but it wasn’t frequently quoted by the church fathers. Of the NT passages outside of the Johannine μονογενής texts, Heb 1:3 is by far the most commonly quoted, and is the basis for the Nicene Creed’s language, “Light of Light.”

Having acknowledged the importance of these other proof texts, both OT and NT, I claim that texts in which μονογενής is found were in fact used by the church fathers in support of eternal generation. In particular, it would appear that John 1:14, 18 outstrip all the other proof texts in frequency of quotation, except for Heb 1:3. Here is a table showing the number of times each verse is quoted according to the Scripture index of the standard English translations of each author:

	Ps 2:7	Ps 110:3	Prov 8:25	John 1:14	John 1:18	John 5:26	John 16:15	Heb 1:3
Athanasius	4	7	8	31	18	2	9	14
Basil of Caesarea	1	2	1	2	5	1	2*	9
Gregory Nazianzen	0	1	1	2	1	0	2	2
Gregory of Nyssa	0	0	2	5	7	1	4	14
TOTAL	5	10	12	40	31	4	17	39

*FoC 122 incorrectly cites one of these as John 17:10 (p. 118).

The Scripture indexes consulted for Athanasius and the two Gregories were those provided in NPNF2 (vols. 4, 5, 7). For Basil, I consulted the Scripture indexes of NPNF2 vol. 8 and Against Eunomius, translated by Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (The Fathers of the Church [FoC] 122; Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011).

It should be noted that Basil speaks of “the glory of the Only-Begotten” at least five times (Against Eunomius 1.1, 17, 23, 26; 2.33), and while the phrase isn’t part of a quotation of John 1:14, it does appear to be an allusion to it.

Now I have to be honest and admit that I did not take the time to look up all of these passages in Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers. I looked up many of them, but not all. So it is certainly possible that in some cases the verse is quoted to make a totally unrelated point that has nothing to do with eternal generation. There are also cases where it is a judgment call. For example, if a church father quotes John 1:18 but only comments on “who is in the Father’s bosom” does that count as using this verse as a proof text for eternal generation? So perhaps these stats can be questioned and refined.

Nevertheless, even though I have not looked up every single quotation, I am confident that it is simply not true to say that the church fathers “do not use … the texts in which [μονογενής] is found as textual support for the eternal generation of the Son.”

Why is this important? Because it affects how one views the epistemological basis and status of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Giles views it primarily as a theological deduction from the correlative names “Father” and “Son” (The Eternal Generation of the Son, pp. 82-83). He argues against a “Bible-alone” view of doing theology. He writes that “no doctrine springs directly from the pages of Scripture” and that the Scriptures are insufficient for doing theology because they “do not speak univocally on most topics” and on some topics they say “nothing specific at all” (p. 43). Instead, he argues that “every doctrine … ultimately represents a theological affirmation predicated on a synthetic apprehension of what is given in Scripture” (p. 46). In relation to eternal generation, Giles cites Robert Letham favorably. Letham, he says, “accepts that there is no text that actually says the Son is eternally generated or begotten but nevertheless finds much in Scripture that suggests this idea and nothing that excludes it” (p. 42).

But I maintain that the doctrine of the two processions (the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit) is not a synthetic apprehension or a theological deduction. It is actually just saying as much as Scripture says and no more—the Son is “begotten” of the Father and the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and the Son. That is what Scripture expressly teaches, in those very words, about the personal distinctions peculiar to each of the persons of the Trinity. The church fathers believed and taught these things, not because they deduced them theologically but because the Scripture itself says these things in those very words (“begotten,” “proceeds”).

Now I want to be clear. I’m not saying we should never engage in “synthetic apprehension” or “theological deduction.” The Westminster Confession affirms that “the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (WCF I.6). Often we do need to look at a large number of passages and make theological deductions. This is exactly what we are doing when we construct the doctrine of the Trinity. We are looking at everything Scripture teaches and putting the pieces of the puzzle together to form a coherent doctrine of God. The doctrine of the Trinity is biblically warranted, but the entire doctrine is not stated in one verse or even one passage.

What I am denying is that the biblical warrant for eternal generation is of the same character as the biblical warrant for the doctrine of the Trinity. As I read the church fathers, the Son’s being begotten of the Father is actually one of the constituent building blocks that is explicitly taught in Scripture, with chapter and verse to back it up. It is one of the things “expressly set down in Scripture” not one of the things that “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” The church fathers viewed the Son’s being eternally begotten of the Father as one of the givens of Scripture, one of the pieces of the puzzle, one of the revealed facts that we must reckon with, not as a theological deduction after all the pieces of the puzzle are put together into a whole.

I think a large part of the problem is that many (perhaps including Giles) think of eternal generation as a big, fat, complex doctrine, like the Trinity. They speak of “the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son,” and then ask, “What is the biblical warrant for this doctrine?” But this way of speaking gives it too much heft. Actually, it isn’t really a “doctrine” at all in that meaty sense. All it is, is the biblical answer to the question, “What distinguishes the three persons of the Trinity?” According to the church fathers, in order to answer that question we have to follow the exact words of Scripture, and no more. According to the church fathers, all the Scripture reveals is that the Son is “begotten” (Ps 2:7; 110:3; Prov 8:25; the five μονογενής verses in the Johannine literature) and the Spirit “proceeds” (John 15:26). Of course, technically we have to get a little theological and add that these terms “begotten” and “proceeds” are eternal or timeless actions appropriate to the impassible nature of God. But that is about it. That is the “doctrine” of eternal generation.

The five Johannine passages that apply the word μονογενής to Jesus Christ have particular importance because they provide prime New Testament evidence for saying the Son is “begotten.” The three Old Testament texts are very strong, but they aren’t completely free of doubts for the modern exegete. Psalm 2:7 (“You are my Son; today I have begotten you”) could be understood as a reference to the resurrection of Christ (as quoted in Acts 13:33). Psalm 110:3 (109:3 LXX) is so different in the Old Greek that we as Protestants worry if it is a correct translation of the Hebrew. And Proverbs 8:25 is about the shadowy figure of “Wisdom,” and some may not be convinced that Wisdom is the pre-incarnate Christ. I actually think there are good responses to all of these doubts and I firmly agree with the church fathers’ exegesis of these three OT (LXX) verses.

But if μονογενής means “only begotten,” then we have five clear New Testament texts that aren’t hampered by these doubts. Indeed, we have John 1:1-18 which uses the term twice (vv 14, 18). This is such an extraordinary passage that goes a long way toward our Trinitarian synthesis. There is no doubt that these verses are about the pre-incarnate Son in his immanent ontological identity “in the Father’s bosom” before creation. True, we also have John 5:26 and Heb 1:3—texts that the church fathers also appealed to. Thank God for those wonderful verses! I could hang the whole doctrine of eternal generation on them if I had to. But they don’t use the language of “begetting,” which is what we really need in order to be able to point to scriptural language that says, “See, the Scripture says the Son is begotten,” just as the church fathers pointed to John 15:26 and said, “See, the Scripture says the Spirit proceeds.”

Finally, it’s important to get the meaning of μονογενής right because it plays such an important theological role in the Nicene Creed as providing the exegetical anchor for the claim that the Son is “begotten, not made” (see previous post).

Μονογενής in the Church Fathers: A Response to Kevin Giles, Part 4

The Meaning of Monogenēs in the Nicene Creed

Giles not only argues that the Greek-speaking church fathers understood μονογενής to mean “unique” and applied it to the Son “to speak of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ,” he also argues that “unique” is the meaning of the term as used in the Nicene Creed. In his Jesus Creed post responding to me he wrote that he is convinced the Nicene Creed makes “a clear and sharp distinction between the words μονογενής and γεννάω.” In his 2016 ETS paper, he stated: “The Nicene Creed says, ‘We [Christians] believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only (μονογενής) Son of God’ …. Again, we all know that the word μονογενής means ‘only’ in the sense of ‘unique’; ‘one of a kind.’”

In this post, I want to challenge Giles’s interpretation of μονογενής in the Nicene Creed. The word is used in both the 325 and the 381 version, but in the 381 version it was moved to a different location a few words earlier. Here are the two versions side by side, both in the original Greek and in English translation. I am only quoting the second article about the Son, and only the beginning portion of that article, up through the famous homoousion. The main verb “we believe” is to be understood from the first article.

The Creed of Nicaea (325)	The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381)
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τοὐτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί	Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father	And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

What were the changes in the 381 version relative to the 325 version? One change is that the phrase “God of God” is deleted since “very God of very God” was felt to be sufficient. This is a minor stylistic edit. But the next three changes are more significant:

• The phrase “that is, of the essence of the Father” was deleted.
• The prepositional phrase “before all ages” was added.
• As mentioned, “only begotten” was moved up from after “begotten of the Father” to go with the initial clause, “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”

   325:   τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ
   381:   τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα

In 325, μονογενής is a précising term modifying the aorist passive participle γεννηθέντα, “begotten of the Father as only-begotten.” Oskar Skarsaune argued this in his helpful article, “A neglected detail in the creed of Nicaea (325),” Vigiliae christianae (1987): 34-54. He writes:

“If one takes monogenes—as it now stands in the creed [of 325]—not as an asyndetic apposition to the foregoing phrase, but as a precision to γεννηθέντα: ‘begotten as only-begotten’, one gets a sentence which seems perfectly adapted to the following precision: ‘that is, from the substance of the Father’ …. In its present position, the word [monogenes] serves as a first precision of the meaning of γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, closely followed by the further precision: ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός” (pp. 36, 44).

In 381, μονογενής is in a different position and functions as an adjectival description of the Son, with γεννηθέντα now functioning as the precision of μονογενής, “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages” (τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων).

Either way, γεννηθέντα plays a major role explicating the meaning of μονογενής in the Creed, whether μονογενής is a precision of γεννηθέντα, or vice versa. Giles argues the presence of γεννηθέντα actually suggests μονογενής does not mean “only begotten,” since the “begotten” segment of meaning (were it really present) would then be repeated in γεννηθέντα: “only-begotten … begotten of the Father” (381). This “introduces repetition that makes little sense,” Giles says. But linguists say redundancy is a common feature of human communication because it reinforces the intended meaning. Contrary to Giles, a redundant interpretation is in fact more likely than a non-redundant one. If anything, the Nicene Creed is a master class in rhythmic redundancy: “God of God … very God of very God” (325), and “begotten … begotten, not made” (γεννηθέντα … γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα) (325 and 381).

Corroborating this interpretation of μονογενής as “only begotten” is a very helpful contemporary document, the Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, dated 324, the year before the Council of Nicaea. Alexander’s reasoning against the views of his heretical presbyter Arius is a powerful, early statement of the orthodox position. He uses the term μονογενής of the Son seven times in the letter, but I will only quote three of them. In these three instances it is instructive to see how the verb γεννάω is used in collocation with “only begotten,” just as in the Nicene Creed. For example, here is a quote where he says the Father “begat the only-begotten Son”:

“… the Father is always Father. And He is Father from the continual presence of the Son, on account of whom He is called Father. And the Son being ever present with him [which Alexander had earlier proved from John 1:18, ‘the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father’], the Father is ever perfect, wanting in no good thing, for He did not beget His only-begotten Son (γεννήσας τὸν μονογενῆ υἱόν) in time, or in any interval of time, nor out of that which had no previous existence” (apud Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.3; NPNF2 3.37 modified).

In the next quote, Alexander speaks of “the only-begotten nature” of the Word, who “was begotten of the self-existent Father,” which he supports with a quotation from 1 John 5:1 which also uses the perfect participle “begotten”:

“In their [referring to Arius and his followers] ignorance and want of practice in theology they do not realize how vast must be the distance between the Father who is unbegotten (ἀγεννήτος), and the creatures, whether rational or irrational, which He created out of the non-existent; and that the only-begotten nature (φύσις μονογενής) of Him who is the Word of God, by whom the Father created the universe out of the non-existent, standing, as it were, in the middle between the two, was begotten of the self-existent Father (ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος πατρὸς γεγέννηται), as the Lord Himself testified when He said, ‘Every one that loveth the Father, loveth the Son that is begotten of Him (τὸν υἱὸν τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένον)’ [1 John 5:1]” (NPNF2 3.39 modified).

In his quotation of 1 John 5:1, Alexander has inserted τὸν υἱόν in front of the phrase τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένον to make clear that he takes it as a reference to the Son begotten of the Father. Modern commentators see “the one begotten of Him” as referring to the believer rather than the Son. But the point is that Alexander interprets the φύσις μονογενής (“the only-begotten nature”) of the Son as his being begotten of the Father, which sets the Son apart from things created out of the non-existent.

The third passage I want to quote where Alexander uses the word μονογενής is highly significant because it foreshadows the language of the Nicene Creed itself.

“We believe, as is taught by the apostolical Church, in an only unbegotten Father (μόνον ἀγέννητον πατέρα), who of His being hath no cause, immutable and invariable … and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten not out of that which is not, but of the Father who is (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ μονογενῆ, γεννηθέντα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος πατρός); yet not after the manner of material bodies, by severance or emanation … but in an inexpressible and inexplicable manner, according to the saying which we quoted above, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ [Isa 53:8]” (NPNF2 3.39 modified).

Skarsaune notes that “These passages [in Alexander’s letter] clearly imply a specific exegesis of monogenes, viz. that the word means the only one who has been born, begotten” (p. 43). He recognizes that modern scholars think the -γενης stem means “kind” and he follows them in thinking the word originally meant “only one of its kind.” However, Skarsaune argues, Alexander is deliberately connecting μονογενής and γεννάω, a connection he thinks Alexander got from Origen.

The language is so similar to the Nicene Creed, particularly the use of γεννηθέντα in connection with μονογενής, it strongly suggests that Alexander had a hand in the original draft of the Creed of Nicaea in 325. We know he attended the Council, with the young Athanasius as his assistant. There can be little doubt that Alexander thinks μονογενής means “only begotten,” and he likes it because it is an important biblical term—as John said: “The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18). This provides scriptural justification in Alexander’s mind for the notion that the Son is “begotten” from the bosom or οὐσία of the Father, not made out of nothing as the creatures.  

Skarsaune writes: “The Son being born monogenes means that he derives his existence ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός! I thus conclude that for Alexander the term monogenes was thought to be a strong weapon against the Arians, because he read the Origenistic concept of eternal begetting into it” (p. 44).

Returning to the Creed of Nicaea, Skarsaune has argued that the similarities between Alexander’s letter and the actual text of the Creed suggest that Alexander and his circle were the ones who drafted the Creed. Since μονογενής is a Scriptural term and since it is used in John 1:18 to signify the Son’s origin as begotten from the Father, not being a creature made from the things that do not exist, it seems that this term μονογενής was specifically inserted into the Creed to provide the exegetical ground of the phrase “begotten, not made,” a key phrase in the Creed that functions as a trumpet blast against the Arians who said the Son was a creature made by God.

In the 381 version, decades later, the arrangement of words was changed somewhat, but the theology is the same. In fact, the 381 version underscores how the whole argument rests on the biblical word μονογενής. The word μονογενής is the anchor and the rest of the anti-Arian portion of the Creed is a cascade of expository phrases fleshing out what that means with ever-increasing clarity until the climactic homoousion is reached:

τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ,

τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,

φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,

γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα,

ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί

The Son’s being begotten of the Father provides the ultimate theological ground for the homoousion. Just as human fathers beget sons that are the same in substance, that is, fully human, so the divine Father begets a Son who is the same in substance with him, that is, fully divine. The intervening phrases, “Light of Light, very God of very God,” make this logic clear. All of this rich theology is anchored in the affirmation that Jesus Christ is the Father’s “only begotten” Son. By denying that that is what μονογενής means in the Nicene Creed, Giles misses an important element of the Creed’s scriptural logic.

Μονογενής in the Church Fathers: A Response to Kevin Giles, Part 3

What Monogenēs Meant as Applied to the Son—According to the Church Fathers

Giles claims that when the church fathers applied the term μονογενής to the Son, they only intended “to speak of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ” and not to affirm that he is “only begotten.” Giles would grant that what makes the Son unique is that he is eternally begotten, but I take him to be saying this was something the fathers stated synthetically and theologically, that is, not analytically inferring “begottenness” as a predicate contained in the word μονογενής itself. I think this is demonstrably untrue. Here is some evidence showing that the church fathers did indeed apply the term to the Son with the understanding that it positively affirms the Son is “only begotten.”

The church fathers often used μονογενής substantivally (or absolutely as they would say) as a name or title of the Son lifted from John 1:14 (“glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father”) but without quoting the verse. This usage suggests they interpreted the word to mean “only begotten.” Otherwise, we would have to translate the substantival use as “the Only One,” which hardly has any significance, or “the Unique One.” This translation problem was noted by the modern translators of Basil’s work, Against Eunomius, Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (The Fathers of the Church [FoC], vol. 122). Giles himself says he wrote to Mark DelCogliano asking him about their decision to render μονογενής as “only begotten.” This was Dr. DelCogliano’s reply:

“I remember when beginning the project we toyed with translating the term as ‘only’ or ‘unique,’ in line with modern biblical translations. This led to what seemed to us odd substantive usages such as ‘Only One,’ but at least it was accurate, we thought. But the more we thought about it, we thought that Basil (as well as others) really understood the term in the sense of ‘only offspring of the Father’—what we here in the states would call an ‘only child’ (see Contra Eunomius 2.20-21). And we thought that this understanding of the term accorded well with the traditional translation ‘Only-Begotten’” (quoted by Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son, p. 145 n124).

This absolute, substantival use occurs about 95 times in Basil’s Against Eunomius. I literally counted each occurrence of “the Only-Begotten” by hand in the recent (2011) English translation by DelCogliano and Radde-Gallwitz. I say “about 95” because I may have missed a few, and a couple of times it was Eunomius who used the term. (Basil quotes Eunomius throughout and refutes him point by point.) I would even go so far as to say “the Only-Begotten” seems to be Basil’s preferred way of referring to the second person of the Trinity. As Basil’s translators pointed out, it would result in a rather odd translation to render all 95 of these as “the Only One.” It seemed to the translators that Basil took the word in the sense “only offspring” or “only child,” and that therefore the best translation was the traditional one, “the Only-Begotten.”

Not only do we have the frequent substantival use, ὁ Μονογενής (“the Only-Begotten”), but the church fathers explicitly asked why the Son is called μονογενής and gave a clear answer. 

Athanasius says the Son is called μονογενής “because of his generation from the Father” (μονογενὴς μὲν διὰ τὴν ἐκ πατρὸς γέννησιν). And he immediately adds: “One should say that the attribute of being only-begotten has justly the preference in the instance of the Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father .... The Son is the Father’s ‘Only begotten,’ because He alone is from Him” (Against the Arians 2.62, 64; NPNF2 4.382-83). 

Basil said the Son is called μονογενής because he is “the only one begotten” (τὸ μόνος γεγεννῆσθαι) (Against Eunomius 2.21; PG 29.617; FoC 122, p. 161), and repeatedly speaks of “the begetting (or generation) of the Only-Begotten” (Against Eunomius 2.3, 14, 15, 17).

Cyril of Jerusalem said: “This is the reason why He is called μονογενής, because in the dignity of the Godhead, and His generation from the Father, He has no brother” (Catechetical Lectures 11.2; NPNF2 7.64).

Gregory Nazianzen argued that “He is called Only-Begotten, not only because He is the only Son and of the Father alone, and only a Son; but also because the manner of His Sonship is peculiar to Himself and not shared by bodies ... on account of His passionless generation” (Fourth Theological Oration §20; NPNF2 7.316 modified).

The church fathers explicitly ask why the Son is called μονογενής. The answer they gave was not because he is “unique” or “the only one of his kind,” but because he alone is begotten of the Father. They agree that the term μονογενής tells us something about his “generation” or “begetting” (his γέννησις).

Additionally, if the church fathers thought μονογενής meant “unique” without any notion of begetting, they could not have used the term as a peculiar name for the Son when they wanted to identify the Son as a particular person within the Trinity distinct from the other two persons. But they did use the term this way. For the church fathers, the term μονογενής is a descriptor applicable only to the Son and not to any other person of the Trinity, because only the Son is begotten. But it would be applicable to all three persons of the Trinity if they thought the term only meant “unique.” The title “unique,” paradoxically, says nothing unique to distinguish the Son from the Father or the Spirit. But the descriptor “only begotten” does. They made this argument in particular when they discussed the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. They repeatedly said the Holy Spirit, though derived from the Father, is not “only begotten,” because that is the distinguishing property of the Son. Here are some quotes to that effect: 

Gregory Nazianzen: “Nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is one” (οὔτε τὸ πνεῦμα υἱὸς ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἷς γὰρ ὁ μονογενής) (Fifth Theological Oration §9; NPNF2 7.320). In other words, just because the Spirit is “of God” doesn’t make him God’s Son, for there is only one who is “the Only-Begotten.” 

Gregory of Nyssa said the Holy Spirit’s “most peculiar characteristic is that He is neither of those things which we contemplate in the Father and the Son respectively. He exists simply, neither as ungenerate (μήτε ἀγεννήτως), nor as only-begotten (μήτε μονογενῶς): this it is that constitutes His chief peculiarity. Joined to the Father by His uncreatedness, He is disjoined from Him again by not being ‘Father.’ United to the Son by the bond of uncreatedness, and of deriving His existence from the Supreme, He is parted again from Him by the characteristic of not subsisting as only-begotten from the Father (μήτε μονογενῶς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστῆναι)” (Against Eunomius 1.22; NPNF2 5.61 modified).

Basil of Caesarea is succinct and direct: “Nor do we speak of the Holy Ghost as begotten (γεννητόν), for by the tradition of faith we have been taught one Only-Begotten (ἕνα Μονογενῆ)” (Letter 125; NPNF2 8.195).

Try rendering μονογενής as “only” or “unique” in any of these statements, and the argument would fall apart. Consider especially the last quote, the one by Basil: “Nor do we speak of the Holy Ghost as begotten, for by the tradition of faith we have been taught one Only One (or one Unique One).” Such a translation makes nonsense of Basil’s argument and would in fact be heretical, because the Son is not the only one or the only unique one (the Father and the Spirit are unique as well). But if we render Μονογενής as “Only Begotten,” it makes perfect sense. Basil is saying we do not speak of the Holy Spirit as “begotten” because there is only one “Only Begotten,” the Son. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is begotten. Only the Son is begotten.

Μονογενής in the Church Fathers: A Response to Kevin Giles, Part 2

The Meaning of Monogenēs as an Ordinary Greek Word—According to the Church Fathers

I begin by observing that Giles says the church fathers took μονογενής to mean “unique” “as we would expect if modern discussion on the meaning of this word are correct.” But as Giles acknowledges, this is “modern discussion.” Why would we expect the church fathers to follow a modern scholarly assessment of an ancient Greek word? It wasn’t until the late 19th century (B. F. Westcott) and mid-20th century (Francis Marion Warden and Dale Moody) that scholars began to question the translation “only begotten” in the New Testament. More recently Gerard Pendrick has done so in a significant 1995 article published in New Testament Studies. Prior to the late 19th century, at least since the time of Jerome and even earlier, the term in its five Johannine instances was rendered into Latin as unigenitus (“only begotten”). Even the revisionist scholars (Westcott, Warden, and Moody) admitted that at least in the fourth-century church fathers, if not by the Council of Nicaea (325) definitely by the First Council of Constantinople (381), the term μονογενής began to take on the meaning “only begotten” in Greek patristic literature. Pendrick thinks the shift from “unique” to “only begotten” began much earlier, in the writings of the second century apologists. Just because most modern scholars think μονογενής meant “unique” in extra-biblical Greek prior to the New Testament and in the New Testament itself, that does not warrant the assumption that that is what it meant for Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers. This is just an initial observation that doesn’t prove Giles wrong, but it throws doubt on his working assumption.

But let’s dig in and see what the Greek-speaking church fathers actually said they believed was the meaning of μονογενής. We don’t have to speculate. They explicitly addressed the question. Now, they may be wrong in their own assessment of their language. That’s not out of the realm of possibility. Native speakers sometimes misunderstand their own language, especially if they have an agenda, and the church fathers certainly had an agenda. But we aren’t addressing the meaning of μονογενής in Greek. We are addressing what the church fathers thought it meant.

Well, the Greek-speaking church fathers routinely defined the term as meaning “only begotten” with the implication of having no siblings. When they said this, they even made it clear that they were referring to “common usage” apart from its specialized use in Trinitarian discourse. For example, here is what Basil of Caesarea says about the term:

“In common usage μονογενής does not designate the one who comes from only one person [as the Arian Eunomius wanted to argue], but the one who is the only one begotten (ὁ μόνος γεννηθείς) …. If your [Eunomius’s] opinions were to prevail, it would be necessary for the entire world to re-learn this term, that the name ‘only-begotten’ does not indicate a lack of siblings but the absence of a pair of procreators” (Basil, Against Eunomius 2.20-21; PG 29.616-17; FoC 122, pp. 159, 161).

It should not go unnoticed that Basil and Eunomius agreed that the -γενης stem means “begotten.” Their disagreement was over the meaning of the μονο- stem. Eunomius wanted to take it to mean “of one” so that μονογενής would then mean “begotten from only one person.” But Basil said “the entire world” knows μονογενής means “the only one begotten,” with the implication that the person so designated has no siblings.

The church fathers understood the word μονογενής, as an ordinary Greek word, as involving notions of “begetting,” “procreation,” and “offspring.” It didn’t just mean “unique” but “only child.” This can be seen in their analysis of two contrasting biblical titles for Christ, μονογενής (“only begotten”) and πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”). The church fathers thought μονογενής carried the implication of not having any siblings, and as therefore contradictory with the term πρωτότοκος, which does imply siblings because the firstborn is first in a series. The two terms are contradictory because you can’t be both “only begotten” and “firstborn.” If you are the firstborn, that means you have siblings, and therefore you aren’t an only child. Here are two quotes where the church fathers say just that:

“The term μονογενής is used where there are no brethren, but πρωτότοκος because of brethren” (Athanasius, Against the Arians 2.62; NPNF2 4.382).

“Who does not know how great is the difference in signification between the term μονογενής and πρωτότοκος? For πρωτότοκος implies brethren, and μονογενής implies that there are no other brethren. Thus the πρωτότοκος is not μονογενής, for certainly πρωτότοκος is the first-born among brethren, while he who is μονογενής has no brother; for if he were numbered among brethren he would not be only-begotten” (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 2.7-8; NPNF2 5.112; Refutatio confessionis Eunomii §76 in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. 2, ed. Jaeger [Leiden: Brill, 1960]).

Of course, the New Testament does apply both terms to Christ, so the church fathers had to deal with this apparent contradiction. They resolved it by arguing that the term μονογενής (“only begotten”) is applicable to the Son absolutely, as he is in himself, apart from creation and new creation, while the title πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”) is applicable to the Son relatively, as the “firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15), “the firstborn from the dead” (Col 1:18), “the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:29), that is, as he exists, not absolutely and immanently, but in relation to creation and new creation. This argument is made by Athanasius (Against the Arians 2.62-64; NPNF2 4.382-83) and Gregory of Nyssa (On Christian Perfection to the Monk Olympios, in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. 8.1, ed. Jaeger [Leiden: Brill, 1963], pp. 200-202).

But the point at present is not how they resolved the apparent contradiction, but the fact that they thought it was an apparent contradiction in the first place. The apparent contradiction arose from what to them were the lexical realities of the meanings of these two words: μονογενής (“only begotten”) and πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”).

Μονογενής in the Church Fathers: A Response to Kevin Giles, Part 1

Introduction

As the title suggests, I’m beginning a series of blog posts interacting with Kevin Giles on the topic of μονογενής, a Greek word that is used five times in the New Testament with reference to Christ (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and has traditionally been rendered “only begotten.” Significantly, the original Creed of Nicaea (325) uses the word: “We believe … in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father.” The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) also uses the word, but places it in a different location. The term is also applied to the Son hundreds upon hundreds of times in the writings of the Greek-speaking church fathers. Here are the results of performing searches on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) database on a number of ecclesiastical writers, ranked by the number of times the word occurs in their writings:

Ecclesiastical Writer	Μονογενής	Dates	TLG #
Cyril of Alexandria	981	d. 444	4090
Gregory of Nyssa	643	c. 330–395	2017
John Chrysostom	465	c. 347–407	2062
Theodoret of Cyrrhus	351	c. 393–460	4089
Didymus the Blind	346	c. 313–398	2102
Eusebius of Caesarea	340	c. 260–340	2018
Epiphanius of Salamis	304	c. 315–403	2021
Athanasius	287	c. 296–373	2035
Basil of Caesarea	281	c. 330–379	2040
Origen	126	c. 185–254	2042
Cyril of Jerusalem	89	c. 315–387	2110
Gregory Nazianzen	27	329–389	2022

Dates from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3^rd ed.)
TLG # = the TLG author # (an arbitrary 4-digit unique identifier for each author)
The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae is based at the University of California, Irvine, and is a database of literary Greek from Homer to the fall of Constantinople (www.tlg.uci.edu).

The current scholarly consensus is that the term, as used in extra-biblical Greek and in the New Testament, simply means “unique” or “only one of his kind,” and does not mean “only begotten.” I am currently engaged in detailed research that would suggest that this is not entirely correct. I argue that while it is used with the meaning “unique” in certain contexts, the most basic meaning is “only begotten” in extra-biblical Greek. I further believe that “only begotten” is the best rendering of the word in the five Johannine passages. Dr. Giles disagrees with me on this point, being convinced of the scholarly consensus with respect to the New Testament usage.

However, that is not the point I am engaging here. In this series of blog posts, I want to interact with his claim that “unique” is also the meaning of the term as used by the church fathers (primarily Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers—Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa) and in the Nicene Creed. It is one thing to say μονογενής means “unique” in the New Testament. That claim is widely accepted, and I completely understand why Dr. Giles believes it, even though I am currently engaging in scholarship to call it into question. But it is another thing to say μονογενής means “unique” in the fourth-century church fathers as well. This incredible claim demands a response.

Dr. Giles is an Anglican minister in Australia, who has written a couple of books expounding the orthodox, classical doctrine of the Trinity and critiquing “eternal functional subordination” (EFS) as advocated by men like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware: The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (IVP, 2002), and Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Zondervan, 2006). I share his discomfort with EFS or “eternal relations of authority and submission” (ERAS) in the immanent Trinity (although I don’t share his perspective that EFS is heretical). More recently, he has also written a defense of the historic belief that the Father eternally begets (or generates) the Son in a book titled The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (IVP Academic, 2012). Chapter 8 of this more recent book includes a critique of EFS.

Where does “only begotten” come in? Well, at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in San Antonio, Grudem and Ware publicly announced to a very large audience that they now affirm the eternal generation (EG) of the Son. (It isn’t too often you hear a scholar publicly say they were wrong in views they had previously published and that they’re planning to revise their books. That takes humility, courage, and integrity!) This occurred on the first day of ETS, Tuesday, November 15, 2016. There was a panel of four speakers: two opposed to EFS (Giles and Millard Erickson) and two in favor (Grudem and Ware). Grudem held up a paper I had written defending the traditional rendering of μονογενής as “only begotten” and said it played a role in changing his mind on EG. My paper is set to be published in a forthcoming multi-author book edited by Fred Sanders and Scott Swain titled Retrieving Eternal Generation (Zondervan, 2017).

Since many were inquiring about that paper, I wanted to make the substance of the argument available prior to its official publication. So I wrote a brief précis titled “Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten’” (published by the Gospel Coalition on November 23, 2016). This sparked a response by Giles that he published on Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog on December 13.

In response to me, Giles argues that

“the word μονογενής is not the biblical basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, and for this reason how the word μονογενής is translated into English is, as far as the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is concerned, of little importance.”

He adds:

“In preparing to write my book, The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology, I read carefully Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers who developed the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son in opposition to the teaching of the ‘Arians’ of various kinds. I discovered that the Nicene fathers used the word, μονογενής, to speak of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, making the point that what made him unique above all else was that he was eternally begotten. They never appeal to this word as the basis for their doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. The Nicene Creed of 381 reflects exactly the same thing.”

This is consistent with his book, where he stated that the Greek-speaking fathers

“do not use [μονογενής] or the texts in which it is found as textual support for the eternal generation of the Son. For them, as we would expect if modern discussions on the meaning of this word are correct, the word was understood to mean ‘unique’ or ‘only’” (The Eternal Generation of the Son, p. 81 n44).

To summarize, Giles makes a number of related claims:

• The consensus of modern New Testament scholarship is that μονογενής means “unique,” not “only begotten,” and this modern interpretation is correct not only for the New Testament but also for the Greek-speaking church fathers.
• Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers used the word “to speak of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ,” not to affirm that he is the “only begotten” Son.
• They never appealed to this word, or to the texts in which it is found in the New Testament, to provide exegetical support for EG. Their biblical warrant for EG lay elsewhere.
• Even in the Nicene Creed, the word μονογενής means “unique,” not “only begotten.”

I disagree with each of these points. The focus of this series of blog posts is not to engage the debate over μονογενής in extra-biblical Greek or in the New Testament. My concern is with the fourth-century Greek-speaking fathers, especially Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers. In the series of posts to follow, I will provide plenty of evidence from their writings showing that Giles is simply wrong to read the modern consensus of New Testament scholarship that μονογενής means “unique” back into the fourth century.

Jesus is the Son of God

In my previous post, I wrote a review of The Deep Things of God by Fred Sanders. In this post, I’d like to focus on one particular section of his book that I really benefited from and thought was extremely helpful. It’s in Chapter Four, “The Shape of the Gospel.”

Sanders writes:

“We need to understand Jesus as the eternal Son who behaves like the Son on earth as he does in heaven and in time as he does in eternity. He was always the co-eternal, co-equal Son of God who always delighted in the presence of the Father, and when he took human nature to save us, he continued to be the co-eternal, co-equal Son of God, still delighting in the presence of the Father” (p. 151).

Sanders points out that when the Word became flesh (John 1:1, 14), his divine nature did not change. Rather, he added a real human nature to his eternal self.

“But here is the crucial thing to notice, the great, open secret at the heart of the gospel of God:  when the Word became flesh, the sonship of the second person of the Trinity did not undergo any change either” (p. 151).

When the Son became man, “he lived out in his human life the exact same sonship that makes him who he is from all eternity as the second person of the Trinity, God the Son. So when he said he was the Son of God, and when he behaved like the Son of God, he was being himself in the new situation of the human existence he had been sent into the world to take up” (p. 152).

Sanders quotes the Anglican theologian, Austin Farrer, who pointed out that we might like the straightforward statement, “Jesus is God,” and yet that statement obscures something extremely important, namely, the relationship and distinction between God the Father and God the Son. There is a reason the New Testament is so reserved about calling Jesus “God” and much more frequently affirms that “Jesus is the Son of God.”  

Farrer wrote: “What was expressed in human terms here below was not bare deity; it was divine sonship” (quoted by Sanders, p. 152).

Sanders adds: “What the apostles want to show is that Jesus was the Son: he came, lived, taught, acted, died, and rose again as the Son of God .... The temptation to gloss over the fact that Jesus was the Son, in our hurry to get to the fact that he was God, is a temptation to be resisted” (p. 153).

“When the Father sends the Son into salvation history, he is doing something astonishing: he is extending the relationship of divine sonship from its home in the life of God down into human history” (p. 155).

In other words, there is continuity between the pre-incarnate sonship and the incarnate sonship of Christ. This seems to be self-evidently true when you read the Gospels. Consider some passages from the Gospel of John (ESV):

John 6:38: “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 7:28-29: “You know me, and you know where I come from. But I have not come of my own accord. He who sent me is true, and him you do not know. I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me.”

John 8:28-29: “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.” 

John 8:42: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here.”

John 16:28: “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

John 17:1, 4-5: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you ... I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

John 17:24: “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.”

There is only one center of consciousness, one ego (= “I”) of the Son, as he speaks of his relationship with the Father as a man and as he looks back upon his pre-incarnate life with the Father “before the foundation of the world.” He is one and the same Son.

Jesus is the Son of God!

The Deep Things of God, by Fred Sanders - Book Review

Fred Sanders, The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010).

Fred Sanders is associate professor of theology at the Torrey Honors Institute, a Christian great books program at Biola University.

In this book, Sanders seeks to help evangelicals re-learn the doctrine of the Trinity. His argument is that there is an intimate relationship between the Trinity and the evangelical heritage with its gospel-centered piety. He writes:

“Nothing we do as evangelicals makes sense if it is divorced from a strong experiential and doctrinal grasp of the coordinated work of Jesus and the Spirit, worked out against the horizon of the Father’s love. Personal evangelism, conversational prayer, devotional Bible study, authoritative preaching, world missions, and assurance of salvation all presuppose that life in the gospel is life in communion with the Trinity ... The central argument of this book is that the doctrine of the Trinity inherently belongs to the gospel itself ... Because the gospel is Trinitarian, evangelicals as gospel people are by definition Trinity people” (pp. 9-10).

However, Sanders is concerned that evangelicals have forgotten the deep Trinitarian background of the gospel that was of central importance to an earlier generation of evangelicals. Therefore, one of his goals in this book is to introduce us to the writings of earlier evangelicals to show their Trinitarian understanding of the gospel. He quotes authors from both the Puritan/Reformed branch and the Wesleyan/Holiness branch of the evangelical movement, low church and high church, great theologians and revivalist preachers. He quotes John Calvin on one page and Oswald Chambers on the next, Jonathan Edwards and Billy Graham, John Owen and G. Campbell Morgan, Thomas Goodwin and Dwight L. Moody – not to mention others like Andrew Murray, Francis Schaeffer, Henry Scougal, Spurgeon, John and Charles Wesley, and the Heidelberg Catechism!  Quite a mish-mash, but one calculated to make his point that a robust Trinitarian theology has always played a central role in evangelical piety.

Here are brief summaries and quotes from each chapter:

Chapter 1: “Compassed About By Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Or, How Evangelicals Are Profoundly Trinitarian Whether They Know It or Not).” Sanders’s point in this chapter is that even if evangelicals today may not be fully aware of it, there is a “tacit Trinitarianism” already implicit in everything we do. “It is the deep grammar of all the central Christian affirmations” (p. 46).

Chapter 2: “Within the Happy Land of the Trinity (Or, God in Himself).” This chapter deals with what theologians call “the immanent Trinity,” that is, the Trinity without reference to creation or redemption, that is, without reference to us. “Simply knowing that the life of God in itself is the liveliest of all lives is a medicinal correction to our sick, self-centered thinking” (p. 81). “The cry in our day always seems to be for a practical doctrine of the Trinity, for relevance, application, and experiential payoff ... But the wisest Christian teachers have always known that shortcuts to relevance are self-defeating ... What we need to begin with is a profoundly impractical doctrine of the Trinity. With that in place, we can really get something done” (p. 95).

Chapter 3: “So Great Salvation (Or, The Depth of the Gospel).” In this chapter, Sanders does not move immediately from the immanent to the economic Trinity (that will come in Chapter 4). Rather, his concern here is to continue to hammer the point that even in salvation, it is more about God than about us. Riffing on the popular book Your God Is Too Small (1952) by J. B. Phillips, Sanders argues that our gospel is too small because our God is too small. To give us a sense of the greatness of the gospel, Sanders expounds Ephesians 1:3-14, pointing out the Trinitarian shape of the gospel, “from the electing and adopting Father, through the redeeming and revealing Son, to the promised and sealing Spirit” (p. 100). What we discover, in the end, is that ultimately in saving us God gives us himself. He quotes Thomas Goodwin: “Not only God doth bless with all other good things, but above all by communicating himself and his own blessedness unto them” (p. 103). “He does not dispense blessings, but himself” (p. 124). Sanders calls this “the depth of the gospel.”

Chapter 4: “The Shape of the Gospel (Or, The Tacit Trinitarianism of Evangelical Salvation).” In this important chapter, Sanders finally moves to the economic Trinity, showing that each person of the Trinity has a role to play in the economy of salvation. The role of the Son is to accomplish our redemption, and the role of the Spirit is to apply that accomplished redemption to us by regenerating us and living in us. Sanders also shows how these two missions (the economic Trinity) are rooted in the two processions, that of the Son who is begotten of the Father and that of the Spirit who proceeds from the Father (the immanent Trinity). Sanders calls this “the shape of the gospel.”

Chapter 5: “Into the Saving Life of Christ (Or, What’s Trinitarian about a Personal Relationship with Jesus).” Sanders brilliantly shows that what evangelicals like to call “having a personal relationship with Jesus” must be broadened so that our relationship with Jesus is not “Father-forgetful” or “Spirit-ignoring” (p. 171). He makes the excellent point that Jesus is not our Father; rather, the New Testament teaches that the Father of Jesus is our Father (p. 169). Essentially, rather than speaking of having a personal relationship with Jesus, we should focus on the biblical doctrine of adoption, which is itself a Trinitarian concept (Gal 4:4-7).

The last two chapters are self-explanatory from their titles:

Chapter 6: “Hearing the Voice of God in Scripture (Or, The Tacit Trinitarianism of Evangelical Bible Reading).”

Chapter 7: “Praying with the Grain (Or, The Tacit Trinitarianism of All Christian Prayer).”

I really enjoyed this book and strongly recommend it. I think that Sanders has a real gift for explaining doctrine in a way that is clear, understandable, and biblical. At the same time, his use of a wide range of authors anchors his teaching in the best of the evangelical tradition and shows how far we have drifted from our roots. This book would make a great devotional book to work through.