Augustine of Hippo, Harmony of the Evangelists.2.1-2: The Son (as was supposed) of Joseph

Image: Close-up, Jacopo Sansovino, Madonna and Child, c. 1550, painted and gilded papier mache and stucco, National Gallery, Washington, DC.

Greetings, this is Jeff Riddle, Pastor of CRBC, Louisa, Virginia and this is a series of readings from and notes and commentary upon Augustine of Hippo’s Harmony of the Evangelists.

Note: We are resuming this series after a one-year break (from March 2022).

We are in book 2 of 4. This second book is the longest in this work with some 80 chapters. It covers the events recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, with comparison to the other three Gospels, up to the Last Supper. These episodes will only be posted in audio (not video) format.

The Prologue:

Augustine begins by noting he intends to look into the four accounts of Christ in the Gospels and show how they are consistent with one another.

2.1: A statement of the reason why the enumeration of the ancestors of Christ was carried down to Joseph, while Christ was not born of this man’s seed, but of the Virgin Mary.

This book begins with an analysis of the genealogy of the Lord Jesus. Jesus is the Son of Man with respect to his true humanity. Augustine notes also “the heavenly and eternal generation” of Christ as “the only begotten Son of God. Matthew begins by tracing out the “human generation” in the genealogy from Abraham to Joseph, husband of Mary.

He notes that Joseph and Mary were married, though she was a virgin. They were an “illustrious recommendation” to “husbands and wives that they may share affections of the mind, with “no connection between the sexes of the body.” Augustine thus promotes his view that “carnal intercourse” is “to be practiced with the purpose of the procreation of children only.” Joseph was not the father of Jesus but had adopted him from another.

Augustine notes the statement from Luke 3:23 that Christ began his public ministry at “about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” Joseph could be called his “father” only if he was “truly the husband of Mary, without the intercourse of the flesh, indeed, but in virtue of the real union of marriage.”

2.2: An explanation of the sense in which Christ is the son of David, although He was not begotten in the way of ordinary generation by Joseph the son of David.

He begins by saying that even if Mary did not descend from David by blood, we could say he descended from David by virtue of his adoption by Joseph. Given, however, that Paul said, Christ was “of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3), we know that Mary also descended directly from David. Given her connection to Elisabeth, she also came from the priestly line. Thus, Christ came “from the line of the kings, and from that of the priests.”

Conclusion:

The Gospel story of Jesus begins with his human genealogy and his virginal conception.

JTR

WM 222: Barrett, Modern Translations, & Eternal Generation

 

In this episode I review Matthew Barrett's comments on problems with modern translations, with respect to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, in his book Simply Trinity (Baker 2021), recently named by Christianity Today as a 2022 book of the year in the category of theology and ethics (read about it here).

Among other things, Barrett points out that in the twentieth century scholars "erased 'only begotten' from John's corpus and replace this phrase with 'only' or 'unique' instead," adding that due to this change "generations of Christians were never introduced to the concept of eternal generation" (186). He also announces, "that consensus is now changing, and fast" (187).

This illustrates the sometimes subtle (or not so subtle) theological problems that arise from modern texts and modern translations.

I also covered this issue in WM 207, reviewing part of a conversation between Barrett and Charles Lee Irons, and I did a text note on John 1:18 in WM 56.

JTR

WM 207: Is the modern text of John 1:18 "out of sync" with the Nicene Creed?

 

Some Notes for this episode:

In this episode I want to play a brief clip from a recent Credo Magazine podcast (March 15, 2021) in which the host Matthew Barrett, an associate professor of theology at MWBTS, discusses his new book Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Baker Books, 2021) with Charles Lee Irons, an independent scholar from LA.

I’ve been a regular listener to this podcast. Over the last couple of months, Barrett has had various theologians as guests to discuss his book. The book argues that there has been a significant “drift” among evangelicals not only with regard to the Trinity but also with regard to the classical orthodox doctrine of God.

Among the recent guests have been Fred Sanders, J. V. Fesko, Michael Bird, and Liam Goligher.

One of the things that has been often discussed is the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son. Barrett has an entire chapter in his book in which he refutes the EFS (Eternal Functional Subordination) view of Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware. See chapter 8: "Is the Son Eternally Subordinate to the Father?"

This was also a subject of much discussion in the March 15, 2021 interview with Charles Lee Irons.

Irons has written in defense of the traditional understanding of the Greek word monogenés as “only begotten” as it is used in John (1:14, 18; 3:16, 18) and 1 John (4:9). He has been especially critical of modern translations of John 1:18.

I have previously address textual issues relating to John 1:18:

See WM 56.

See also the CB Roundtable on John 1:18.

The issue with John 1:18 is both textual ( monogenés huios or monogenés theos?) and translational (“only begotten” or “unique”).

Right at the end of the Credo podcast (c. the 1:02 mark) Barrett and Irons discuss the problem with modern translations. Neither of these guys are proponents of the traditional text, but they are picking up on doctrinal errors that are being introduced into the modern translations (from the modern texts).

Irons notes the fact that “a plethora of modern translations” which leave out the phrase “only-begotten” are “out of sync” with the Nicene Creed.

This raises the specter that the Nicene creed is unbiblical.

Again, he asks about the implications if our English Bibles are “out of sync” with the Nicene Creed.

He also asks, Who are making the creeds and why are they making them?

He says, “We do have a big problem on our hands.”

He adds: “The church needs to have a Bible … that is consistent with the church’s creed.”

Barrett asks: “Have we strayed/drifted?”

A few observations:

First, these men are to be commended for the questions they are raising. Text affects doctrine.

Second, the issue is not merely with English Bibles but the underlying modern texts.

Third, another great question: Who are the stewards of the Bible and why are they making them? Who are the five persons who edited the NA28?

Fourth, beyond John 1:18 and eternal generation, can this question be raised about other traditional texts that have been abandoned? Like 1 Timothy 3:16 and the deity of Christ or 1 John 5:7-8 and the doctrine of the Trinity.

JTR