It is in St. John's Gospel, however, that con- ceptions of oneness are most pointedly set forth. We note the following :
1. The oneness of Christ and God {IQF 14^ 17"- ^2). The declarations, ' I and the Father are one,' ' he that hath seen me hath seen the Father,' may or may not be designed to teach identity of essence ; they at least express a practical identity as far as human relations are concerned. They imply the moral perfection of Jesus so that His life and ex- amjjle become the manifestation of the Divine ; and not moral perfection only, for His character and teaching constitute the revelation of the Father. Other passages indicate the mutual knowledge and love of the Father and the Son,
OXLY BEGOTTEX
OXLY BEGOTTEX
281
and their mutual indwelling (17-^'^) ; but the main lesson is that Clirist is for us the revealer and representative of God.
2. The oiieness of Christ and His people. — This thought is embodied in the allegory of the Vine (15^**). The branches are a part of the vine, and when separated are dead. The unitj- is therefore that of a common life, and it is indicated in the phrases that express mutual indwelling* The idea is substantially the same as in the tigure of the Body which is the fulness of Him that lilieth all in all (Eph 1^), and even in the tigure of the Temple or spiritual house of which Christ is the foundation and His people are as living stones (1 P 2*, Eph 2r^). This oneness is not of equality ; for the vine is greater than the branches ; the head is the source of the life, and occupies a position of authority. Jesus {X)ssessed tiie Spirit without measure, and His life marks the ideal towards which His followers are to strive (Eph 4'^). But it is a oneness of life, though in the conditions of nonnal human existence the Divine is often ob- scured, and at best is only j^artially exhibited. This oneness of Christ and His people is repre- sented as parallel to the oneness of the Father and the Son : in resjiect of mutual knowledge (10'^ ^^}, community of life (17-'), and the love wiiich issues from the Father and the Son (15*). Hence the loving obedience of the disciple to his Lord should corresjKjnd to the consecration of the Son to the Father (15'*).
3. The oneness of Christ's people as constituting a Body or Church, is expressed in the metaphor of the one flock (lu'* RV), di\-ided amongst Jewish and Gentile folds. And to the same effect is the assertion that Christ is to ' gather together into one' the children scattered abroad (IF-). The first of these texts contradicts the claim of a par- ticular organization to be the sole Church of Clirist. Both of them belong to a far loftier sphere of thought, which conceives the Church as a great spiritual organism, embracing those of every land and age who are retleemed anil sanctified, and who by the power of God live for His Kingdom and glon,-.
4. But the conception of a catholir Church one and holyc&rnef- us away from any visible condition of things ; and the moral onenes< of faith and love which every comi>any of Christians shoirld exhibit presents itself a< an unrealized ideal. The first years of Christianity were indeetl a jieriod of singular oneness (.\c4^-t. But harmony gave place to discord as new questions of thought and practice had to be faced. Consequently we find St. Paul pouring out his lieart in pleas and prayers for one- ness of mind and heart and soul (Ph 2:^). In an- ticipation of such troublous times, Christ makes oneness a main burden of His last prayer with His disciples (Jn 17"- -''■■*). as He makes mutual love the sum of His closing commandments ( 15^'^). Sucii oneness, resting on the l»asis of Divine fellowship and the possession of Christlike excellence, l^e- conies a means of the attainment of perfection (17^). For, ^vithout social relationship and the mutual support of interdependent men, htiman nature cannot truly realize itself or completely fulfil the end of its creation.
LrreRiTTRE.— A. >ra<Jaren, Holy of EolUg, 16Sff., 199 ff. ; Rendel Harris, Cninn trith God, 41 ff., 127 ff.
R. Scott. ONLY BEGOTTEN.— 1. Meaning.— There is no doubt that the term 'only begotten' indicates a nufince of the Greek novoyeviii which is very seldom empliasized. As H. Schmidt proves, the word •yiyvfffdai has in j^eneral usage entirely lost the early sexual sense of the root ftp. It means simply 'to arise." 'to become.' It signifies 'that that which previously was not there and had no
existence comes into being " ; fj.ovo',evT)% is ' what alone acquires or has existence,' it is merely a fuller form for ftavoi (as xp^iw-cryei'ijj = a-pviros, 6^to7ev^j = o,aotoj, dei7ei'Tjs = aitiftos). When we have to do witli living beings — men or animals — the meaning ' bom,' ' begotten ' is, of course, congruous, but there is no emphasis whatever attachetl to this side. When Christ is designated u.ovar;ivr]s lios, the emphasis is laid not on tiie fact that He as Son was 'bom' or 'begotten' (in contrast to being 'created' or 'made'), but that He is the 'only' Son. that as Son of God He has no equal. The Latin translators were quite rigiit when originally they renderetl the expression lids fi-owievris simply hy Jiliits iinirtis, not hy f/i us unigenifus. It was the dogmatic disputes as to the inner essential relations between Christ and God, especially those raiseii by Arius, which first gave occa-sion for em- phasizing the point that Christ as the Son of God was a begotten' Son, i.e. that He did not form part of the creation. After that it became a general custom to render juoi'o->ev^s by unigenitus, •only begotten." In the original form of the so- called ' Apostolic Sj-mbol " — the • Uld Roman Symbol ' — we read : icat e«j 'Kpurrbi' ItjcoOv t6v vibv avrov rbv ixovor/evr) tov Kvpiov iju^v ; and in the Latin text, wiiich in all probability belongs to the same date (i.^. in any case some time in the '2nd cent.) : 'et in Christum Jesum filium eius unicum dominum nostrum.' In the Latin, there is notiiing to dis- tinguish whether ' unirum ' is to be connected with 'filium eius' or 'dominum nostrum.' The present writer, in an exhaustive inquiry into the historical meaning of the original form of the Apostolic Symbol i^see Literature cited at end), has defended the hypothesis that the latter combination is the correct one. Then, of course, the tov before fiovo- ',evrj in the traditional Greek form must be an inter}K>lation. Such an interpolation could easily arise in later times, because the title lios /.lovo-iepi^s was well known from the Johannine writings as an honorific designation of Jesus, whereas in the NT the title Ki'ptos juoi'tr/ei'jjs does not occur (only I ets Kvpios occurs, 1 Co 8*"). As far as the language I is concerned, there is absolutely no reason why I Christ should not be designated /xoyo-,eK7js Kvpws ; ' and the thought, which then finds a place in the Symbol, is a particularly pregnant one. The com- bination of fiopor^evris with id-pios, not with I'tos, is favoured by two considerations : first, that in the Symbol there is nothing that recalls Johannine i«ieas (much, on the otlier hand, suggesting Pauline thought) ; and, secondly, that there are a number of Latin texts where, undoubtedly, - unicum ' is con- nected with 'dominum nostrum.'