We see monogenē ascribed in John 3:16 to the Son, translated by most English bibles as "only begotten," but does this mean anything more than "only son"? John 1:18 has monogenēs ascribed to the Son as well -- actually, it uses theos rather than huion -- but again, is it just a reference to an only child (a la Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38)? Or is there some connotation akin to the "begotten, not made" Nicene formulation here?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What did John 3:16 mean by monogenē?
- Thread starter RedFan
- Start date
This is a short but seemingly scholarly SDA discussion that argues the correct meaning is "unique" rather than "only begotten" - https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/Christ-as-Monogenes.pdf. However, this site contains a long and detailed analysis arguing that monogenes in fact originally meant "only begotten" and not "unique" - https://asitreads.com/response-to-james-ayars-regarding-monogenes/.
"Only begotten" is particularly confusing because (1) Jesus was indeed begotten in an entirely conventional sense when Mary was impregnated, and (2) "begotten" seems inconsistent with Trinitarian theology since the Trinitarian argument is that there was never a time when the Son (or Second Person) did not exist - so what does "begotten" mean in this context? "Unique" makes sense and avoids these issues, but the above argument against this interpretation seems pretty compelling.
I'll have to admit, I never gave much thought to this issue. I was just reading John 3:16 in terms of God giving Jesus for the salvation of the world - the Jesus who was indeed begotten when Mary was impregnated. It always seemed odd that this concept of being begotten was likewise applied to the Second Person of the Trinity, where it causes analytical difficulties. (As I mentioned on another thread, I was surprised to hear staunch Trinitarian William Lane Craig say there was no Father-Son-Spirit dichotomy before the Incarnation - i.e., the Person of the Trinity now called the Father or the Spirit could have incarnated as the Son - which seems consistent with my understanding that the "begatting" was of Jesus at the impregnation of Mary.)
"Only begotten" is particularly confusing because (1) Jesus was indeed begotten in an entirely conventional sense when Mary was impregnated, and (2) "begotten" seems inconsistent with Trinitarian theology since the Trinitarian argument is that there was never a time when the Son (or Second Person) did not exist - so what does "begotten" mean in this context? "Unique" makes sense and avoids these issues, but the above argument against this interpretation seems pretty compelling.
I'll have to admit, I never gave much thought to this issue. I was just reading John 3:16 in terms of God giving Jesus for the salvation of the world - the Jesus who was indeed begotten when Mary was impregnated. It always seemed odd that this concept of being begotten was likewise applied to the Second Person of the Trinity, where it causes analytical difficulties. (As I mentioned on another thread, I was surprised to hear staunch Trinitarian William Lane Craig say there was no Father-Son-Spirit dichotomy before the Incarnation - i.e., the Person of the Trinity now called the Father or the Spirit could have incarnated as the Son - which seems consistent with my understanding that the "begatting" was of Jesus at the impregnation of Mary.)
My honest guess would be that John was thinking of Jesus the Son solely in terms of the earthly, begotten Jesus - with a concept of the preexistent Logos having become flesh, but not of Jesus the Son having preexisted as the Son in a heavenly Trinity. It seems to me just too obvious that Jesus the Son was begotten in the entirely earthly sense of the term and that a heavenly, eternally existent Son who was likewise "begotten" in some other, undefinable sense is just too analytically nonsensical (not meaning nonsensical in the sense of "silly" or "ridiculous" but "unintelligible"). I don't see 1 John 4:9 as mandating a preexistent Son.
Last edited: