Only Begotten

ONLY BEGOTTEN

1. Meaning.—There is no doubt that the term ‘only begotten’ indicates a nuance of the Greek μονογενής which is very seldom emphasized. As H. Schmidt proves, the word γίγνεσθαι has in general usage entirely lost the early sexual sense of the root γεν. It means simply ‘to arise,’ ‘to become.’ It signifies ‘that that which previously was not there and had no existence comes into being’; μονογενής is ‘what alone acquires or has existence,’ it is merely a fuller form for μόνος (as πρωτογενής = πρῶτος, ὁμογενής = ὅμοιος, ἀειγενής = αἰώνιος). When we have to do with living beings—men or animals—the meaning ‘born,’ ‘begotten’ is, of course, congruous, but there is no emphasis whatever attached to this side. When Christ is designated μονογενὴς υἱός, the emphasis is laid not on the fact that He as Son was ‘born’ 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 right when originally they rendered the expression υἱὸς μονογενής simply by filius unicus, not by filius unigenitus. It was the dogmatic disputes as to the inner essential relations between Christ and God, especially those raised by Arius, which first gave occasion for emphasizing 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 μονογενής by unigenitus, ‘only begotten.’ In the original form of the so-called ‘Apostolic Symbol’—the ‘Old Roman Symbol’—we read: καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν; and in the Latin text, which in all probability belongs to the same date (i.e. in any case some time in the 2nd cent.): ‘et in Christum Jesum filium eius unicum dominum nostrum.’ In the Latin, there is nothing to distinguish whether ‘unicum’ 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 (see Literature cited at end), has defended the hypothesis that the latter combination is the correct one. Then, of course, the τόν before μονογενῆ in the traditional Greek form must be an interpolation. Such an interpolation could easily arise in later times, because the title υἱὸς μονογενής was well known from the Johannine writings as an honorific designation of Jesus, whereas in the NT the title κύριος μονογενής does not occur (only εἷς κύριος occurs, 1Co 8:6). As far as the language is concerned, there is absolutely no reason why Christ should not be designated μονογενὴς κύριος; and the thought, which then finds a place in the Symbol, is a particularly pregnant one. The combination of μονογενής with κύριος, not with υἱός, is favoured by two considerations: first, that in the Symbol there is nothing that recalls Johannine ideas (much, on the other hand, suggesting Pauline thought); and, secondly, that there are a number of Latin texts where, undoubtedly, ‘unicum’ is connected with ‘dominum nostrum.’

2. NT usage.—In the NT the expression υἱὸς μονογενής is used only of Christ by John (Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18, 1Jn 4:9). The passage Joh 1:14 is a contested reading, and in any case comes only indirectly into comparison. Elsewhere in the New Test, the expression occurs in Luk 7:12 (the young man of Nain), Luk 8:42 (the daughter of Jairus), Luk 9:38 (the demoniac boy), Heb 11:17 (Isaac). In the LXX Septuagint μονογενής is frequently the translation of יָחִיד, especially wherever the idea of uniqueness or aloneness seems to be emphasized: Jdg 11:34, Psa 22:20; Psa 25:16; Psa 35:17; (cf. also Tob 3:15; Tob 6:10; Tob 6:14; Tob 8:17). The expression μονογενής acquires a qualitative secondary meaning from the fact that what is ‘unique’ is naturally of special value. An ‘only son’ is a specially beloved son. This secondary meaning belongs in all likelihood to the expression υἱὸς μονογενής in Jn. also. Cremer compares with it the term used by St. Paul in Rom 8:32—υἱὸς ἴδιος. In the LXX Septuagint , where this secondary meaning is emphasized, the rendering ἀγαπητός is chosen for יָחִיד: Gen 22:2; Gen 22:12; Gen 22:16, Jer 6:26, Amo 8:10, Zec 12:10. In the Synoptics (in the narratives of the Baptism and the Transfiguration), where Christ is called υἱὸς ἀγαπητός, μονογενής could hardly be substituted. The expression here corresponds to the בָּחִיר of Isa 42:1 [LXX Septuagint ἐκλεκτός] (for ἀγαπητός in Luk 9:35 Cod. אB and other Manuscripts give ἐκλελεγμένος). In all the passages in Jn., with the exception of Joh 1:14, it seems we might substitute the expression ἀγαπητός for μονογενής.

Joh 1:14.—This passage is of interest because the question arises whether instead of υἱὸς μονογενής we ought not to read θεὸς μονογενής. Hort strongly supports this view with a brilliant display of learning, and has proved that the latter reading was very widespread in the Ancient Church. It is to be found in a number of good Manuscripts of the Gospel: א BCL 33 and in the Pesh. and Coptic versions. He also argues, in support of it, that ‘the whole Prologue leads up to it, and, to say the least, suffers in unity if it is taken away.’ Supposing that we have to accept this reading, it appears to the present writer probable that St. John, in applying this predicate to Christ, was influenced by regard to a non-Christian religious employment of the notions of μονογενής and θεὸς μονογενής, and that the expression υἱὸς μονογενής has thus in his writings a special secondary meaning in addition. For the term Μονογενής occurs in the Valentinian (Ptolemaic) system as the name of one of the aeons (Irenaeus, i. 1 ff., ed. Harvey). Wobbermin, however, has shown that the term was of special significance in the Orphic mysteries, seeing that it occurs there as the personal name of a powerful incomparable divinity. Just as St. John took over from the Hellenistic philosophy the title ‘Logos’ for Christ, in order to remove from the minds of Christians the fear that there was beyond Christ a higher mediator between God and man, so he might have taken over from the highly important Orphic cult the title ‘Monogenes,’ in order to show Christians that they knew Him who is in reality the θεὸς μονογενής. We should then have to suppose that St. John has invested the expression with a meaning which was foreign to general and popular usage, but which probably corresponded with the use of the word in Orphic circles. That is to say, it is possible to interpret the term μονογενής as designating Christ as ἐκ μόνου γενόμενος (cf. αὐτογενής—a name of an aeon in the Barbelognosis [Iren. i. xxix. 1], γηγενής—a description of mankind in Clem. Rom. [Note: Roman.] [First Ep. to Cor. xxxix. 2] etc.). Christ would then be the ‘God’ who proceeded from the ‘only,’ i.e. from the ‘true God,’ the Son who sprang from the ‘unique One.’ In that case the idea of ἀγαπητός, noted above as the secondary meaning which per se everywhere best suits the context, would recede into the background, But the present writer does not regard it as likely that St. John knew anything of Orphism. In the whole Gospel there is nothing else to suggest this. It might, indeed, be said that the conception of the Logos in the Prologue is the only trace of Hellenism in the Fourth Gospel. But in the first place this is not quite correct, and again in itself it is much more likely that John [the author of the Gospel is unmistakably a Jew] knew the philosophy of Philo than that he was acquainted with the Orphic system. Thus the present writer believes that it was persons like Clement of Alexandria who were first reminded of the Orphic titles of the aeons by the predicate μονογενής applied to Christ as Son of God. He further holds that the Church so far thought she was acting wisely in making out of the υἱὸς μονογενής of Joh 1:14 a θεὸς μονογενής, in order to be able with more assurance to meet both Orphism and Gnosticism.

Literature.—F. J. A. Hort, Two Dissertations, i. ‘On μονογενὴς θεός’; B. F. Westcott, The use of the term μονογενής in the Epistles of St. John, p. 169 ff.; H. Cremer, Wörterbuch der neutest. Graecität; J. H. Heinrich Schmidt, Synonymik der griech. Sprache, ii. p. 530 ff.; F. Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol, ii. p. 581 ff.; G. Wobbermin, Religionsgesch. Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen, p. 114 ff.; Beyschlag, NT Theology (English translation ), ii. 414 ff.

Ferdinand Kattenbusch.

ōn´li bḗ-got-´’n (μονογενής, monogenḗs): Although the English words are found only 6 times in the New Testament, the Greek word appears 9 times, and often in the Septuagint. It is used literally of an only child: “the only son of his mother” (Luk 7:12); “an only daughter” (Luk 8:42); “mine only child” (Luk 9:38); “Isaac ... his only begotten” (Heb 11:17). In all other places in the New Testament it refers to Jesus Christ as “the only begotten Son of God” (Joh 1:14, Joh 1:18; Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18; 1Jn 4:9). In these passages, too, it might be translated as “the only son of God”; for the emphasis seems to be on His uniqueness, rather than on His sonship, though both ideas are certainly present. He is the son of God in a sense in which no others are. “Monogenēs describes the absolutely unique relation of the Son to the Father in His divine nature; prōtótokos describes the relation of the Risen Christ in His glorified humanity to man” (Westcott on Heb 1:6). Christ’s uniqueness as it appears in the above passages consists of two things: (a) He reveals the Father: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (Joh 1:18). Men therefore behold His glory, “glory as of the only begotten from the Father” (Dan 1:14). (b) He is the mediator of salvation: “God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him” (1Jn 4:9; Joh 3:16); “He that believeth not (on him) hath been judged already” (Joh 3:18). Other elements in His uniqueness may be gathered from other passages, as His sinlessness, His authority to forgive sins, His unbroken communion with the Father, and His unique knowledge of Him. To say that it is a uniqueness of nature or essence carries thought no farther, for these terms still need definition, and they can be defined only in terms of His moral consciousness, of His revelation of God, and especially of His intimate union as Son with the Father. See also BEGOTTEN; PERSON OF CHRIST; SON OF GOD.

The reading “God only begotten” in Joh 1:18 the Revised Version margin, though it has strong textual support, is improbable, and can well be explained as due to orthodox zeal, in opposition to adoptionism. See Grimm-Thayer, Lexicon; Westcott, at the place

(ìïíïãåíÞò, éָçִéø)

1. Use of the phrase.-It occurs in a literal sense four times in the NT: in Luk_7:12 (the widow’s son at Nain), Luk_8:42 (Jairus’ daughter), Luk_9:38 (the child in the scene after the Transfiguration). Heb_11:17 (Isaac); not at all in the other Synoptists. As referring to our Lord, it is Johannine only; and outside the Fourth Gospel it is found once only-in 1Jn_4:9. It is used of Christ absolutely, ‘the Only-begotten,’ in Joh_1:14; and with ‘Son of God’ or ‘his Son’ in Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18, 1Jn_4:9. The reading in Joh_1:18 is disputed; the best-attested reading is ìïíïãåíὴò èåüò (without the article), ‘God only begotten’ (àBCL Pesh. Boh. aeth., etc.); but AX with Old Lat., Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] , Syr-cu, Arm., secondary uncials and almost all cursives, have ὁ ìïíïãåíὴò õἱüò, ‘the only begotten Son.’ The Diatessaron seems to have got out of the difficulty by reading ‘the Only-begotten’ simply; Syr-sin is wanting here, but Burkitt (Evang. da-Meph., 1904, ii. 307 f.) thinks that it had ìïíïãåíὴò èåüò, and that the unrevised Syr-cu had ‘the Only-begotten’ as the Diatessaron. This is to some extent confirmed by the Ignatian interpolator (Philipp. 2 [late 4th cent.]), who also reads ‘the Only-begotten’ (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers: ‘Ignatius’ 2, iii. [1889] 190; see also i. 254). The Fathers are divided; the old Roman Creed (as given by Swete, Apostles’ Creed, p. 16) has ‘unicum filium,’ which evidently presupposes the second reading (the derived ‘Apostles’ Creed’ has ‘filium eius unicum dominum nostrum’; see below).

Another Greek rendering of éָçִéã, is ἀãáðçôüò, and this is found in the Septuagint of Gen_22:2, whence the same word has found its way into 2Pe_1:17 and into Mat_17:5, Mar_9:7 (‘my beloved Son’); in Luk_9:35 the best Manuscripts have ἐêëåëåãìÝíïò, ‘chosen.’ But the Septuagint has ìïíïãåíÞò in Jdg_11:34 (Jephthah’s daughter) and Tob_3:15 (Sarah, daughter of Raguel), and Aquila seems to have used it in Gen_22:2 (Hort, Two Dissertations, p. 49). The Latin renderings are unicus and unigenitus; the former seems to be the older of the two (Dict. of Christ and the Gospels ii. 281).

2. Meaning as applied to our Lord.-It appears to the present writer to be clear that in Jn. ìïíïãåíÞò refers to the pre-existent Sonship of our Lord: ‘God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world’ (1Jn_4:9). Our Lord is Son in a unique sense; we by adoption, He by nature (see Adoption). ‘The Divine essence was so peculiarly communicated to the Word that there never was any other person naturally begotten of the Father, and in that respect Christ is the only begotten Son of God’ (Pearson; cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. x. 4: ‘He is called Son, not as advanced by adoption, but as naturally begotten’). The emphasis on the first part of the word is the same as that on ἑáõôïῦ and ἰäßïõ in Rom_8:3; Rom_8:32 (‘God sending his own Son … spared not his own Son’); in these phrases St. Paul has an equivalent to ìïíïãåíÞò.

The above is the universal interpretation of the title by the Fathers from at least the time of Nicaea onwards, though other views were held in certain heretical circles. But was it the earliest interpretation? It is certainly the fact that ìïíïãåíÞò was not much used by the writers of the first three quarters of the 2nd cent., as far as we can judge by their very scanty remains; but Justin uses it occasionally (e.g. Dial. 105: ‘He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin’), and it is found in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (20). The Valentinians in the 2nd cent. used it for their aeon Nous; they certainly treated the Only-begotten of Jn. as a pre-existent Being, but they took the particle ‘as’ (ὡò) in Joh_1:14 as excluding the complete identification with Jesus (see Swete, op. cit. p. 26). The title took its place (probably c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 150) in the old Roman Creed-in the Greek form of the Creed as ìïíïãåíÞò, in the Latin form as unicus-perhaps as a protest against the misuse of it by the Valentinians. In some Western forms of the Creed, however, it is absent. F. Kattenbusch (Das apost. Symbol, 1894-1900, and Dict. of Christ and the Gospels ii. 281) holds that ‘unicum’ was originally meant to go with ‘Dominum,’ but in view of the Johannine use this seems improbable. Later in the 2nd cent. ìïíïãåíÞò is constantly used by Irenaeus.

Harnack asserts (Das apostol. Glaubensbekenntniss, ed. 1892) that in the Roman Creed the title refers only to the Incarnate Life, not to the Pre-existent Sonship. This is certainly not the case with Justin (see above); and Aristides affirms the pre-existence of the Son of God (‘He is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down from heaven, and … clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God,’ Apol. 2, ed. Harris [Texts and Studies i. 1 (1891) 36]). The earlier Fathers taught that before the Incarnation our Lord was Son of God (e.g. Ignatius, Magn. 6, 7; Smyrn. 1), and did not, like some contemporary heretics, limit the Sonship to the human life. But they did not at first adopt the technical word ‘generation’ for the communication of the Divine essence to the Son. Here we have an excellent example of the change in the use of technical theological words, of which hypostasis furnishes another and a later example. Ignatius says (Eph. 7) that our Lord was ‘generate and ingenerate’ (ãåííçôὸò êáὶ ἀãÝííçôïò)-generate, that is, in His humanity, and ingenerate in His Divinity; ‘generation’ as used by Ignatius has an earthly sense, whereas by the time of Justin and Tatian it had acquired a heavenly one (cf. Swete, p. 28). What Ignatius means is that our Lord’s humanity is created, His Divinity is uncreated; and, as Lightfoot shows (excursus in Apostolic Fathers: ‘Ignatius’2, ii. [1889] 90 ff.), he substantially held the same views as the Nicene Fathers as to the Person of Christ. In the later writers Christ is said to be ἀãÝíçôïò in His Godhead-there never was a time before He came into existence; but He was not ἀãÝííçôïò. In His Godhead he was ãåííçôüò, ‘begotten’; the Father alone was ἀãÝííçôïò, ‘unbegotten.’ But this distinction was unknown to Ignatius. It is also an example of the fluid state of theological terminology that some 2nd cent. writers speak of the pre-existent Christ as Spirit (pseudo-Clement, 2 Corinthians 9 : ‘Christ … being first Spirit, then became flesh’; cf. Hermas, Sim. v. 6, ix. 1, and Lightfoot’s note in Apostolic Fathers: ‘Clement,’ ii. [1890] 230); and that even in the 3rd cent. Hippolytus speaks of the Incarnation being necessary for the perfect Sonship of our Lord, although, when unincarnate, being perfect Word, he was Only-begotten (c. Noet. 15).

Other interpretations of ‘Only-begotten’ make it equivalent to ‘begotten by one alone,’ as Eunomius asserted (Basil, c. Eunom. ii. 20: ìüíïò ðáñὰ ìüíïõ … ãåííçèåßò), or to ἀãáðçôüò, ‘beloved,’ as is affirmed by the Racovian Catechism (Socinian).

The word ìïíïãåíÞò is found in the Nicene and ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creeds, in the early Creed of Jerusalem (gathered out of Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures), in the Creed of Marcellus (Epiphanius, Haer. lxxii. 3), in Apost. Const. vii. 41, and apparently in all Greek forms of the Apostles’ Creed.

See also article First-Born, First-Begotten.

Literature.-B. F. Westcott, The Gospel acc. to St. John, 1908, The Epistles of St. John, 1883; J. Pearson, On the Creed, new ed., 1899, article ii., esp. notes 52, 53; H. B. Swete, The Apostles’ Creed3, 1899; F. J. A. Hort, Two Dissertations, 1876; F. Kattenbusch, article ‘Only-begotten’ in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels ii. (takes a different view from that of this article); W. Sanday, article ‘Son of God’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv.

A. J. Maclean.