Monogenes - one-of-a-kind and unique ? Or "only begotten"?
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Begotten is used in a filial sense, not a biological sense. A singular, once and for all relationship with the Father underlies monogenes.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
I think your reliance upon Hebrews 11:17 in the understanding that monogenes (genes here from genos, not gennaø) may mean more than begetting. Abraham had Ismael, not just Isaac. But Isaac was unique, so I do not understand your reluctance to accept uniqueness as not "theologically heavy". [M]onogenes theos in John 1:18 is theologically heavy. Why not add the eternal generation aspect of begotten that was understood by the early church?
Etymology does not determine meaning as relates to this topic. I think the translators understood that only begotten’ conveys the idea, not of derivation and subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality--Jesus is all that God is, and He alone is this.
Etymology does not determine meaning as relates to this topic. I think the translators understood that only begotten’ conveys the idea, not of derivation and subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality--Jesus is all that God is, and He alone is this.
Regarding Ishmael, the very same book says, "...you are illegitimate and not sons." Hebrews 12:7-8. Also, "Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." Genesis 22...God did not consider Ishmael to be Abraham's son, it makes sense that God would now call Isaac Abraham's only son. Not only is Isaac the first born, he is the only son born in the family. Abraham has no other son!
Liddel and Scott say the words are from mono and ginomai, not genos.
If we regard monogenes as of a unique kind rather than only-begotten, how does this impact our understanding of all the creeds and confessions which speak of Christ as the only-begotten of the Father?
Liddel and Scott say the words are from mono and ginomai, not genos.
If we regard monogenes as of a unique kind rather than only-begotten, how does this impact our understanding of all the creeds and confessions which speak of Christ as the only-begotten of the Father?
Last edited:
Has Wayne Grudem and the newer commentators improved upon the Nicene Creed, the WCF, and all the other creeds (as well as Liddel and Scott and other scholars) by insisting that monogenes is not really "only-begotten" but is "unique" or "one of a kind"? I am highly suspicious that the Church has been wrong for over a millennium and is only now being corrected.
Did any of the Church Fathers or the Reformers speak on this issue?
Did any of the Church Fathers or the Reformers speak on this issue?
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
As Patrick mentioned above, etymology alone is not sufficient to achieve proper understanding. The authors of Scripture were limited in their descriptive powers by the words available and understandable to the reader. Taken at face value, monogenes means exactly what you would suppose it means, a natural son as opposed to one adopted or otherwise. But it is clear from what the Bible says about Christ, and from how this word is also used to describe Isaac, that something much deeper is in mind, something that can perhaps only be fully understood by considering the whole of divine revelation regarding the person and work of Christ.
bible translation - Did the early church fathers view "monogenes" as "only" or "only-begotten"? - Christianity Stack Exchange
and also,
Also, in this article (http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/monogene.htm ) for the translation of the term monogenes into "unique" the author nevertheless admits the following:
Is it logical then to conclude that: If we conclude that monogenes should be translated as one-of-a-kind or unique and does not involves concepts of "begetting" then all of the Creeds and Confessions which speak of the Son as "eternally begotten" are then inadequate and need of revision and are (as the quote above states), merely "so much verbal nonsense."
and also,
Also, in this article (http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/monogene.htm ) for the translation of the term monogenes into "unique" the author nevertheless admits the following:
Is it logical then to conclude that: If we conclude that monogenes should be translated as one-of-a-kind or unique and does not involves concepts of "begetting" then all of the Creeds and Confessions which speak of the Son as "eternally begotten" are then inadequate and need of revision and are (as the quote above states), merely "so much verbal nonsense."
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
I would argue that early church fathers are ascribing to the phrase "only begotten" the same meaning that Scripture attributes to it, which is independent of and beyond its mere etymology.
Last edited:
Dearly Bought
Puritan Board Junior
I'd recommend a piece entitled "The Only Begotten Son" by Michael Marlowe which deals with some of these contemporary questions of etymology, although the recommendation doesn't necessarily extend to the appended bit from C.S. Lewis.
Here is the Catholic answer: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=460588&language=en
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Grudem on the topic (in one of the appendices in his systematic theology book):
The controversy over the term “only begotten” was unnecessary because it was based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Greek word monogenems (used of Jesus in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9). For many years it was thought to be derived from two Greek terms: mono, meaning “only,” and gennaō, meaning “beget” or “bear.” Even the received version of the Nicene Creed understands it that way, since the explanatory phrases “begotten of the Father before all worlds” and “begotten, not made” both use the verb gennaō (beget) to explain monogenēs. But linguistic study in the twentieth century has shown that the second half of the word is not closely related to the verb gennaō (beget, bear), but rather to the term genos (class, kind). Thus the word means rather the “one-of-a kind” Son or the “unique” Son. (See BAGD, 527; D. Moody, “The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” JBL 72 [1953],213–19.)
The idea of “only-begotten” in Greek would have been, not monogenēs, but monogennētos. However, it is not impossible that the Nicene fathers in A.D. 325 and 381 would have understood monogenēs to include the idea of “begetting,” since the word is used several times elsewhere to refer to someone who is an “only” child, and the idea of begetting could commonly be assumed to be present. The fact that the word does not mean “the only son that someone has begotten” can be confirmed by noticing its use in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenēs—but certainly Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, for he had also begotten Ishmael. The term there means rather that Isaac was Abraham’s “unique” son, that there was none other like him. (The word elsewhere means “unique” with no idea of begetting in view, in the LXX in Psalms 21[22]:20; 34[35]:17; Wisdom7:22; 1 Clement 25:2.) Thus the NIV translates John 3:16, “he gave his one and only Son,” and the NASB margin reads “or, unique, only one of His kind.” The RSV translates, “he gave his only Son.” All of these versions have rightly omitted any idea of “begetting” from the translation. It is reassuring, however, to see that even though the early church had a misunderstanding of one biblical word, the rest of Scripture came to the defense of doctrinal purity and prevented the church from falling into the error of Arianism (although the struggle consumed most of the fourth centuryA.D.).
If the phrases “begotten of the Father before all worlds” and “begotten, not made” were not in the Nicene Creed, the phrase would only be of historical interest to us now, and there would be no need to talk of any doctrine of the “eternal begetting of the Son.” But since the phrase remains in a creed that is still commonly used, we perpetuate the unfortunate necessity of having to explain to every new generation of Christians that “begotten of the Father” has nothing to do with any other English sense of the word beget. It would seem more helpful if the language of “eternal begetting of the Son” (also called the “eternal generation of the Son”) were not retained in any modern theological formulations. Similarly, to refer to Jesus as God’s “only begotten” Son—language that derives from the King James translation—seems to be more confusing than helpful. What is needed is simply that we insist on eternal personal differences in the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Son eternally relates to the Father as a son does to his father. (The fact that Jesus is said to be “born of God” in 1 John 5:18 is probably not a reference to an eternal relationship, but rather refers to the incarnation when Christ was born as a man; compare Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5.) Finally, in previous discussions of what this “eternal begetting” might have meant, it has been suggested that the Father has eternally been in some sense the source of the distinctions in role among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (e.g., Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 93–94). So long as we do not assume that these personal distinctions had a beginning at some point in time, nothing in Scripture would seem to contradict this idea, but nothing in Scripture would indicate that we should affirm it, either. Perhaps there is no meaningful sense in which we should speak about any one of the persons being a “source” of these personal distinctions, for they have always existed and are essential to the nature of God himself.
The idea of “only-begotten” in Greek would have been, not monogenēs, but monogennētos. However, it is not impossible that the Nicene fathers in A.D. 325 and 381 would have understood monogenēs to include the idea of “begetting,” since the word is used several times elsewhere to refer to someone who is an “only” child, and the idea of begetting could commonly be assumed to be present. The fact that the word does not mean “the only son that someone has begotten” can be confirmed by noticing its use in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenēs—but certainly Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, for he had also begotten Ishmael. The term there means rather that Isaac was Abraham’s “unique” son, that there was none other like him. (The word elsewhere means “unique” with no idea of begetting in view, in the LXX in Psalms 21[22]:20; 34[35]:17; Wisdom7:22; 1 Clement 25:2.) Thus the NIV translates John 3:16, “he gave his one and only Son,” and the NASB margin reads “or, unique, only one of His kind.” The RSV translates, “he gave his only Son.” All of these versions have rightly omitted any idea of “begetting” from the translation. It is reassuring, however, to see that even though the early church had a misunderstanding of one biblical word, the rest of Scripture came to the defense of doctrinal purity and prevented the church from falling into the error of Arianism (although the struggle consumed most of the fourth centuryA.D.).
If the phrases “begotten of the Father before all worlds” and “begotten, not made” were not in the Nicene Creed, the phrase would only be of historical interest to us now, and there would be no need to talk of any doctrine of the “eternal begetting of the Son.” But since the phrase remains in a creed that is still commonly used, we perpetuate the unfortunate necessity of having to explain to every new generation of Christians that “begotten of the Father” has nothing to do with any other English sense of the word beget. It would seem more helpful if the language of “eternal begetting of the Son” (also called the “eternal generation of the Son”) were not retained in any modern theological formulations. Similarly, to refer to Jesus as God’s “only begotten” Son—language that derives from the King James translation—seems to be more confusing than helpful. What is needed is simply that we insist on eternal personal differences in the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Son eternally relates to the Father as a son does to his father. (The fact that Jesus is said to be “born of God” in 1 John 5:18 is probably not a reference to an eternal relationship, but rather refers to the incarnation when Christ was born as a man; compare Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5.) Finally, in previous discussions of what this “eternal begetting” might have meant, it has been suggested that the Father has eternally been in some sense the source of the distinctions in role among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (e.g., Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 93–94). So long as we do not assume that these personal distinctions had a beginning at some point in time, nothing in Scripture would seem to contradict this idea, but nothing in Scripture would indicate that we should affirm it, either. Perhaps there is no meaningful sense in which we should speak about any one of the persons being a “source” of these personal distinctions, for they have always existed and are essential to the nature of God himself.
So...am I understanding this right:
A handful of 20th Century scholars are improving the meaning of the greek of the Nicene Creed, which was written by native Greek speakers?
Doesn't this mean that ALL of our shared Creeds and Confessions that use this language are sub-par and in need of revision?
A handful of 20th Century scholars are improving the meaning of the greek of the Nicene Creed, which was written by native Greek speakers?
Doesn't this mean that ALL of our shared Creeds and Confessions that use this language are sub-par and in need of revision?
This brief hint at Vos' view might be interesting:
Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere et al., vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2014), 44.
22. Show that the first and foremost reason why the Second Person is called Son lies in His eternal and supernatural relationship with the Father and is independent from His position as Mediator.
This appears:
a) From those places where the Word is called Son before His incarnation (Gal 4:4; John 1:14, 18).
b) From the places in which the name Son of God is used such that it includes the deity of the Lord (John 5:18–25; Heb 7).
c) From the places in which He is called the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
d) From the fact that Christ nowhere prays to God as “Our Father” or speaks of Him as “Our Father.” It is always “Father.” In these places the Lord does not place Himself on the same line with His disciples. For Him, God is a Father in an entirely other, infinitely higher sense than for them.
e) From the fact that in Mark 13:32 the Lord presents Himself as “the Son” in distinction from angels and men.
f) From the fact that in Matthew 11:27 a wholly unique knowledge of God, which no one else can possess, is derived from His Sonship.
g) From the fact that by accepting the title Son of God, Christ could be charged with blasphemy.
This appears:
a) From those places where the Word is called Son before His incarnation (Gal 4:4; John 1:14, 18).
b) From the places in which the name Son of God is used such that it includes the deity of the Lord (John 5:18–25; Heb 7).
c) From the places in which He is called the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
d) From the fact that Christ nowhere prays to God as “Our Father” or speaks of Him as “Our Father.” It is always “Father.” In these places the Lord does not place Himself on the same line with His disciples. For Him, God is a Father in an entirely other, infinitely higher sense than for them.
e) From the fact that in Mark 13:32 the Lord presents Himself as “the Son” in distinction from angels and men.
f) From the fact that in Matthew 11:27 a wholly unique knowledge of God, which no one else can possess, is derived from His Sonship.
g) From the fact that by accepting the title Son of God, Christ could be charged with blasphemy.
Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere et al., vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2014), 44.
Again, am I understanding the implications of this correctly?
The scholars of the 20th Century (a century where liberalism largely ruled), are asserting that monogenes doesn't really mean what it was traditionally thought to mean.
These (Western) scholars further want to correct the Greek (which was the actual language of the time) which was used even by the early church in formulating Creedal expressions such as, "I believe in...in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds..."
Also, that, therefore, (due to this faulty traditional understanding of monogenes) that those Creeds and Confessions would have been improved had they merely referred to Jesus as unique or one-of-a-kind and not "begotten."
The scholars of the 20th Century (a century where liberalism largely ruled), are asserting that monogenes doesn't really mean what it was traditionally thought to mean.
These (Western) scholars further want to correct the Greek (which was the actual language of the time) which was used even by the early church in formulating Creedal expressions such as, "I believe in...in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds..."
Also, that, therefore, (due to this faulty traditional understanding of monogenes) that those Creeds and Confessions would have been improved had they merely referred to Jesus as unique or one-of-a-kind and not "begotten."
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
It is rather interesting to see how the original Greek was translated into Latin during the Council of Constantinople in 381, and then from Latin into English:
"...the only begotten [Μονογενῆ - unicum (unique; one of a kind)] Son of God, begotten [γεννηθέντα - natum (born; made)] from the Father before all ages..." (source)
What exactly does this mean? Uhmmm...
"...the only begotten [Μονογενῆ - unicum (unique; one of a kind)] Son of God, begotten [γεννηθέντα - natum (born; made)] from the Father before all ages..." (source)
What exactly does this mean? Uhmmm...
I thought the Latin said, "Unigenitum" http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=460588&language=en
Observe development over several centuries here:
Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume II. The History of Creeds. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume II. The History of Creeds. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
As I understand it, according to the papyri discoveries, ordinary Greek-speaking folks used the term to mean "unique" or "one of a kind."
How could the largely greek-speaking early church almost universally mistake the roots of monogenes as being "mono" and "ginomai" instead of "genos?" And how could those like Strong, in his concordance, so easily fall into the mistake of listing the part of the monogenes as being mono and ginomai?
Maybe they weren't that exercised over word-origin, but its meaning to John (et al) as they comprehended him.
Yes, these were people speaking the same language and not so far removed from the writing as we are. Dictionaries, however, and the whole field of linguistics--this is a modern study. So, yes, it is possible that people at a further remove from the writing could have a better idea about the word-formation, given later access to what amounts to a vast trove of ancient documentary evidence; coupled with a peculiar interest in probing word-origins.
What I mean--and this I think is actually helpful to your point, Pergy--is that word-origin is only of partial benefit. Also of limited but greater help is to know that people in the 1C were using the term in contexts that support a "one-and-only" sense. That actually contributes something to our interpretive framework.
But surely it is also possible that the later theological writers were not simply biting on some obscure bait (as if Jn.3:16 was faintly appreciated beforehand). We are almost obligated to suppose they had inherited a "begetting" sense out of this text, rather than inventing one.
The names Father and Son summon without any effort an idea of begetting in human terms. Is this idea at all controversial? How could it be? And yet, when talking about the Trinity and the inter-Personal relations, there is the need for immediate caveats that acknowledge the use of analogous (accommodated) language.
As long as a preference for a "one-and-only" translation does not attempt to rule out "begetting" (properly nuanced to the divine condition) from all consideration, I don't think people with a preference for the latter have anything to fear from the results of modern research. It is when we encounter strong-arm tactics that suggest things like "this finding moots the ancient controversies," or "...makes old arguments about the nature of interTrinitarian relations a big tempest-in-a-teapot," in a kind of worship of modern minds; then we should wonder why we are asked to accept a solo, instead of a concerto of counsel.
Yes, these were people speaking the same language and not so far removed from the writing as we are. Dictionaries, however, and the whole field of linguistics--this is a modern study. So, yes, it is possible that people at a further remove from the writing could have a better idea about the word-formation, given later access to what amounts to a vast trove of ancient documentary evidence; coupled with a peculiar interest in probing word-origins.
What I mean--and this I think is actually helpful to your point, Pergy--is that word-origin is only of partial benefit. Also of limited but greater help is to know that people in the 1C were using the term in contexts that support a "one-and-only" sense. That actually contributes something to our interpretive framework.
But surely it is also possible that the later theological writers were not simply biting on some obscure bait (as if Jn.3:16 was faintly appreciated beforehand). We are almost obligated to suppose they had inherited a "begetting" sense out of this text, rather than inventing one.
The names Father and Son summon without any effort an idea of begetting in human terms. Is this idea at all controversial? How could it be? And yet, when talking about the Trinity and the inter-Personal relations, there is the need for immediate caveats that acknowledge the use of analogous (accommodated) language.
As long as a preference for a "one-and-only" translation does not attempt to rule out "begetting" (properly nuanced to the divine condition) from all consideration, I don't think people with a preference for the latter have anything to fear from the results of modern research. It is when we encounter strong-arm tactics that suggest things like "this finding moots the ancient controversies," or "...makes old arguments about the nature of interTrinitarian relations a big tempest-in-a-teapot," in a kind of worship of modern minds; then we should wonder why we are asked to accept a solo, instead of a concerto of counsel.
- Status
