Featured THE MEANING OF MONOGENES IN JOHN

John's writing style, in comparison to the other gospel accounts, is consistently showing contrasts. As a result, (imo), John must be taken in both 1:18 and 3:16 as "one and only natural born" in contrast to all God's sons who are adopted.

 

what I wonder is why Hebrews 11:17 isn't looked at more intently in this discussion. Considering that Isaac is probably universally accepted as a type of Christ, and he is called the monogenes of Abraham. In that case, shouldn't we investigate Genesis for a better understanding?

Genesis 15:1-4
God: "Great is your reward"
Abraham: "what shall you give me, considering I have no offspring, and one born in my house shall be my heir?"
God: "this one shall not be your heir, but one coming from your own loins shall be your heir."
God: "your descendants shall be as numerous as the stars"

Genesis 21:10
Sarah: "cast out the maid and her son; for her son shall not be heir with my son Isaac"

Genesis 22:2-16
God: "take your son, your only son, whom you love...offer him up to Me"
God: "I know that you fear Me, for you did not withhold your only son from Me"
God: "because you have not withheld your only son from Me, I will surely bless you"
God: "I will multiply your descendants so they will be as countless as the stars"

Hebrews 11:17-18
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac. He had received the promises, yet he was ready to offer up his only son. God had told him, “Through Isaac descendants will carry on your name,”

The primary components of a son were:
namesake
heir

Hebrews 1:2-4
2 in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.
3 The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
4 Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs.

 

https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/only-begotten-unique-or-only-son/

 

I read your article, and found this to be interesting:

There is the obvious problem here that Isaac was not the only son of whom Abraham was the natural father. At that time he was also the father of Ishmael, and later he had various other children through Keturah (Gen. 25:1-4). So ‘only’ will obviously not really do as a translation, Gen. 22:2 notwithstanding. ‘Unique’ or ‘one-of-a-kind’ might be OK, since Isaac was unique in that he was the heir, both of God (Gen. 17:19) and of Abraham (Gen. 25:5). But for that very reason, I think that ‘only begotten’ works better since Isaac was Abraham’s legitimate son. Moreover, in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1, Keturah is described as a concubine (v.32) and only Isaac is described as being ‘begotten’ of Abraham (v.34). Nowhere in the Bible that I can see is Ishmael described as being ‘begotten.’ The term seems to be reserved, in the O.T. at least, for a legitimate heir.


It's also interesting to note that Isaac is the only one of Abraham's offspring to be called "agapeton" or beloved in the LXX. It is also the same word used of Christ by the Father at His baptism in Matthew 3:14


However, I was unimpressed at your concern expressed at the end. If you think the doctrine of the Trinity would be lost without the word "begotten", then it seems you don't see that doctrine all throughout the scriptures - but only as being propped up by one word

 

But if monogenes simply means 'only' or 'unique,' why is it only used to describe people and not things?

 

I can agree with you here JamesL.

 

I did not mean to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on this one word monogenes. My concern is that Christian doctrine may suffer a 'death of a thousand cuts' as modern theologians chip away at them. Hence my concern about Penal Substitution.

 

I'll take a shot at this. (By the way, it may get moved to the translation forum, where it probably belongs.)

First of all, it doesn't have to mean one or the other. It could mean either one, depending on the context.

Secondly, while it is usually a mistake to consider meaning based on etymology, in this case there is a strong semantic content in the word being a compound word made up of monos (only, alone) and gennao (give birth to). A first century Greek who did not know the word would immediately think of those two words, just as a modern American would immediately think of the two words making up "schoolhouse."

An historical illustration of this idea of a strong semantic content is the Japanese word mokusatsu (黙殺), which was used by the Japanese prime minister Suzuki in response to the Potsdam Declaration in WW2. Suzuki apparently meant simply "silence," or that there would be no official answer yet, but the word was taken to mean "ignore," which is only natural since one of the two Chinese characters making up the word is "kill," which is a very strong meaning. Suzuki's poor choice of words prompted the Allies to drop the A-bomb.

To sum up, I can see how the word could sometimes be translated "unique" or even "only child" as in, "My friend is an only child," when looking at the NT usage. However, in references to Christ I would translate it "only begotten," since there are other children of God, namely born again believers, who are children by adoption.

 

Simply because the word can mean "unique" doesn't mean it necessarily will in the contexts we are looking at.

Having said that, I think that John 3:16 (and other usages about Jesus) is ambiguous and can carry both meanings. Jesus is both "unique" and "only begotten." A similar ambiguous usage of a word is anothen in John 3:3, where it can mean "the second time" or "from above." To be born again does mean a spiritual birth in addition to a physical birth, and it does mean to be born from above due to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately, the English language has no word that is similarly polysemous and ambiguous.

 

In modern semantics, any contemporary usage can inform the lexicographer. Therefore, the other NT usages can inform the meaning, remembering that the word is polysemous.

Again, the LXX usage should help with the meaning. In Judges 11:34 and Tobit 3:15 the word is clearly delineated as only born child. Ps. 24:17 (25:17 in English Bibles) is more ambiguous, since David was obviously not an only child, so the meaning "unique" should be understood there in the sense that David was in a unique situation, all alone as it were.

As for the patristic usages you mention, (1) They are from centuries later, and (2) they are usually commenting the Biblical usage, and so are not that useful in determining the first century meanings.

By "only begotten" I take it to refer to the virgin birth.