WHAT DOES THE GREEK WORD MONONGENES MEAN?

The Greek word "monogenes" is a combination of two words: "monos" which means "only" or "alone," and "genos" which means "of the same nature, kind, sort, species" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT); "race, stock, class, kind" (Arndt & Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature).

It literally means "only one of its kind," and with reference to an individual it signifies that person to be a unique and one-of-a-kind being.

Jesus the Messiah is the unique, only one of his kind, Son of God. This is the meaning of "monogenes," and this is how it is translated in many of the more modern translations, which realize the true meaning of this word. Yes, we are all "sons of God" in a very real sense, but none of us are a son of God in the same sense that Jesus is. He is most definitely a "unique, one of a kind" Son of the Living God!

So where did the idea of "begotten" come from?

The confusion has arisen from the failure of some ancient translators to correctly recognize the root word of "genes", which is "genos" = "unique in kind".

Instead, they incorrectly selected the root as "gennao" = "to beget." If this was the correct root, then an additional "n" would need to be added to "monogenes" - monogenNes." It is for this reason (to have a correct translation) that the more recent versions have dropped the idea of "begotten." The concept is simply not there. The NEB has "only Son" Phillips has "only Son"

NIV has "one and only Son" LB as "only Son" (with a footnote saying, "the unique Son of God") Even the NASB, which retains "only begotten" in the text, has a footnote which states the literal translation is "unique, only one of his kind."

Notice: One religious’ group - the Mormons; teach that this phrase ('only begotten Son') means that Jesus originated by birth from God" (Ed Boggess, Gospel Advocate, Dec. 3, 1981). The Mormon scholar James Talmage, in his "Articles of Faith," says that Jesus was merely the firstborn "among the spirit-children of Elohim." Brigham Young, in his "Journal of Discourses," wrote that Jesus was "begotten; after the same manner as the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve." In other words, there was no eternal nature for Jesus; He was "uniquely begotten" by God, and thus did not exist prior to His physical birth.

Indeed, Jesus was uniquely begotten in the womb of Mary by the overshadowing of the Spirit of the only true God – Yehovah. Thus, Jesus did not pre-exist his birth, but is the beginning of the New Humanity that all those who are new creations in him are a part of!

Note: The false doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son was first taught in the third century by Origen and was advanced by Jerome and others in the fourth century to combat what they called the Arian heresy and was used in later times to oppose what they called the subordinationist theologies that deny that the Son is coeternal and coequal with the one he called the only true God – John 17:3. The main problem with eternal generation of the son of God is that it stresses an aspect of sonship that is not biblical."

It teaches that that part of the so-called Godhead referring to the son, was actually created (or "begotten"), and thus was never actually co-eternal or co-equal or co-existent with the Father. In their effort to refute the so-called Arian heresy that the son did not exist prior to is earthly birth, but that he was "begotten from everlasting," they still promoted (unknowingly) the idea of his origin or begetting, and thus that he was not co-eternal or co-existent with God. Which in fact is true, he did not co-exist with God because he was uniquely begotten by God.

Lewis Kash continues, "'Only begotten' is a phrase that was 'begotten' by the Christological controversies of the fourth century. It comes not from the pen of the apostle John, but from the pen of Jerome." In so doing, this false "translation 'only begotten' makes John 3:16 conform to the doctrine of the creeds," rather than to biblical truth!

Lewis Kash also writes, "The translators of the King James Version (1611) were Anglican churchmen and theologians who subscribed to the doctrines of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (1563), which falsely stated that the Son was 'begotten from everlasting of the Father' (Art. II). 'Begotten from everlasting' is a clear reference to the doctrine of the eternal generation. In 1604, the same year in which the translators for the KJV were selected, all English clergymen were required 'by His Majesty's authority' to pledge, 'I, John Doe, do willing and from my heart subscribe to the 39 Articles of Religion.' When King James appointed his translators to revise the Bishops' Bible of 1568, he gave them instructions to make as few changes as possible, to keep 'the old ecclesiastical words,' (such as 'church') and 'when any word has divers’ significations,' to keep that 'which has been most used by the most eminent fathers.'"

Thus, the Son of God is given an origin, and in so doing it denies His eternal coexistence with God and denies his so-called deity! Jesus was not the "only begotten" Son of God. However, he most definitely is the unique, one-of-a-kind, Son of God. The word itself says nothing about begetting, only uniqueness!

This was clearly understood in the early translations of Scripture. "The second century Old Latin version faithfully translated the nine NT occurrences of monogenes as UNICUS = 'unique.'

Dr. Jack P. Lewis (who was head of the Bible Dept. at Harding Graduate School of Religion) wrote, "The earlier Latin Bible had used UNICUS to translate monogenes, and the earliest creeds had so used UNICUS.

The word UNIGENITUS then entered theological discussion and became a vested interest to theologians" (Gospel Advocate, May 1, 1986).

The idea of "only begotten" is not even in the word "monogenes." Rather, it speaks of one who is unique in some very special way; different from all others; one of a kind.

Dr. Moody insisted that 'monogenes' means 'one,' 'only,' or 'unique' rather than 'only begotten.' Moody's major arguments include the following:

(1) The standard lexicons support this meaning!

(2) The Old Latin MSS rendered 'monogenes' by the Latin 'unicus' ('only') rather than 'unigenitus' ('only begotten'). In the Vulgate Jerome CHANGED 'unicus' to 'unigenitus' for theological reasons. The Vulgate exercised a formidable influence on the AV and subsequent English translations.

(3) The LXX (Septuagint) use of 'monogenes' for the Hebrew 'yahid' and NT usage of the term in Luke: 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Hebrews 11:17 clearly support the meaning 'only.' (4) The reference in I Clement 25:2 to the phoenix bird (which in mythology was neither born nor begotten) as 'monogenes' demands the meaning 'only one of its kind.'"

The ISBE continues: "Although 'genos' is distantly RELATED to 'gennan,' 'to begat,' there is little Greek justification for the translation of 'monogenes' as 'only begotten.' The word describes Jesus' uniqueness, not what is called in Trinitarian theology His 'procession.'

In conclusion, assessment of the linguistic evidence seems to indicate that 'unique' may be good translation for all occurrences of monogenes in the Johannine literature."

Let's assume for a moment that "monogenes" does signify a "begetting." IF this is true (which, of course, it is NOT), then notice the following: Hebres 11:17 (KJV) reads, "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten (monogenes) son." According to this passage in the KJV, Isaac is the only begotten son of Abraham. We certainly know that Abraham begat Isaac (see Matthew 1:2 and Acts 7:8, where we find the word "gennao" = "to beget"). But, if Isaac is the only son begotten by Abraham, then how does one explain Gal. 4:22-23?! "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born (from the word "gennao" = "to beget") after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise." Notice also vs. 29: "But as then he that was born ("gennao") after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." Ishmael was begotten by Abraham!! Thus, Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham. The KJV has Scripture contradicting itself!

The problem is easily cleared up, however, when one realizes that "gennao" (to beget) is not the root used in "monogenes." Thus, the word "monogenes" does not refer to a begetting, but rather to the fact that one is unique, one of a kind. Isaac was not the only son begotten by Abraham (contrary to the teaching of the KJV in Hebrews 11:17), however, Isaac was the unique and one-of-a-kind son of Abraham. Unique in what way? Isaac was the "son of promise!" Ishmael was not! This is what Hebrews 11:17 is teaching!

Again, notice Hugo McCord's observation: "The word ('monogenes') can refer to Isaac, but not as 'only begotten,' which phrase Jerome and the KJV and ASV INSERTED in Hebrews 11:17. That insertion makes the writer of Hebrews contradict Moses, who wrote that Abraham had at least seven other sons besides Isaac. But the writer of Hebrews makes clear how Isaac was a monogenes -- a unique person" -- he was the only son of promise! (Gospel Advocate, 3/20/86).

From the scriptures we understand that Jesus was a unique one-of-a-kind man, begotten in the womb of Mary by the overshadowing of the Spirit of God. Luke 1:35: And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born^[e] will be called holy, the Son of God. Jesus was the second man specially created by God the first being Adam who as a result of being created by God [Genesis 2:7] is called the son of God Luke 3:38: the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.