The word begotten is an old fashioned word which nowadays means ‘brought into existence by or as if by a parent’1.
Begotten appears to have been the word of choice when referring to Jesus in older versions of the Bible, but it has been replaced in later translations, with the likes of ‘one and only Son’ or ‘unique Son’.
Here I want to look at the word begotten and see if it is a better, or more accurate, word then the current translations.
I will note here that I am just a layman making sense of the information before me, make sure you read this in that context.
Meaning
The Greek word used is (monogenés2). It occurs 9 times in the New Testament, 5 of which are in John’s books.
A breakdown of the word is…
- monos, “only”
- genos, “kind” or “offspring”
So, from that we get the meanings ‘only of its kind’ (unique) or ‘only begotten’.
The Problem
I remember reading somewhere that ‘one and only’ or ‘unique’ was a more consistent interpretation when taking into account other non-biblical manuscripts. But from looking around it seems that the real issue was the misinterpretation of the word begotten, where it was used to confirm that Jesus was in-fact created, and therefore not God. For instance, take the current meaning as an example ‘brought into existence’ – this cannot be true of one that already existed, but is that the true meaning when referring to Jesus?
C. S. Lewis Explains Begotten
C.S. Lewis was a renowned English scholar and tutor at Oxford University3, so he is definitely qualified to give a definition of the word, and here is his definition of begotten…
“We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set – or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.
Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Son’s of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.”4
What interpretation fits Jesus better?
One and only son
Jesus is the one and only Son of God, and He is the only one of His kind (there being only one God), this is true, however there are a couple of other people that it could also refer to…
Adam fits the description of only son of his kind (he is called a son of God in Luke 3:38), as he was the only human fully made from the dust of the earth, and Eve was the only one of her kind, being made from Adam’s rib. All the rest of humanity was born of a woman. This argument might fall over when thinking about kinds. If that is the case then think about Adam before Eve was created.
The very first angel created also fitted that description, being called sons of God (Genesis 6:2,4, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7), ok I’m assuming God made one at a time.
Then there is the if’s, if God only made one living creature (Revelation 4), that too would be the only one of its kind, and considering that the angels are referred to as sons of God, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that it too would then be considered the only son of its kind.
I’m trying to point out that the ‘one and only son’, or ‘only one of its kind’ is not necessarily unique to Jesus. But, however much anyone else may be considered unique sons of God, they could never be considered begotten, for they are not God.
Begotten
As we see above, begotten fits very well, God begets God, so every time begotten is used for Jesus, it declares Him as God.
And we must also remember that there is, and can only ever be, one God. For God to be all powerful (which He is), there can never be anyone, or anything, else with power over Him, if it did, He wouldn’t be all powerful. If there was another with all power, except that which is over God, then that other wouldn’t be all powerful, and therefore couldn’t be considered God.
So, when God begets God, it is exactly the same essence as God. The one and same.
So, we see, begotten is a far better fit than one and only son. But, regardless of what interpretation fits best, what interpretation is meant by the writers?
What did the writers mean?
Luke
There are three instances in Luke, and all refer to an only child (not Jesus). Any interpretation would fit well into all three, the vast majority of translations (including the KJV) have chosen ‘only’, which does seem to read best, and is likely what Luke meant.
John (and 1 John)
There are four instances in John, but unlike Luke, all four refer to Jesus. It is John 1:18 that I think sets the scene…
‘No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.’ – John 1:18 (emphasis mine)
In this instance it adds theos (God) after monogenés, that is why it is translated to only God. So, this scripture specifically points out the deity of Christ. The other options would be only Son of God, or only begotten of God (I note the literal translations of LSV and BLB say ‘only begotten God’). Given all that I’ve written above, I believe that begotten is a much better fit here.
I do not believe that having only begotten in 1:18, would weaken the other scriptures that don’t include the sufix theos, after all, John makes it very clear in chapter one that Jesus is God, and by saying in 1:14 and 1:18 that He is the Son of God, he is essentially saying that He is the begotten of God (God begets God). Then of course, 3:16, 3:18, and even, 1 John 4:9 should also be interpreted the same.
Hebrews
‘By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son.’ – Hebrews 11:17 (emphasis mine)
The argument to using only here is valid, because Abraham had begotten two sons at that point, so it couldn’t have been his only begotten. The same could be said for ‘only son’, but it was the only son of the promise, that is, he was unique. However, it could also be said that Issac was the only begotten of the promise, that is, the promise was through Sarah (see Galatians 4:22-23).
However it is interpreted it would seem that the author meant the only son of the promise, so I have to agree that only son is a better fit.
Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed came about as opposition to certain heresies, especially Arianism. Arianism declared that Christ is not truly divine but a created being.
The Creed says this about Jesus…
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.5
Now, this is not Biblical Canon, and I’m not stating anything about its accuracy (although I do believe it). My point here is that they used the word begotten to explain Jesus being God, that they chose the best word to be specific enough to oppose the Arian heresy. So why should we not use it today?
I also note that it is also exactly the same definition that C. S. Lewis gave (God from God).
Conclusion
The job of the translators is to translate the text of the manuscripts accurately, and the job of the Bible student is to work out the message that is being communicated. The translators have done their job, and as experts have chosen only Son. Now it is our turn.
Jesus is unique for sure, but He is not just some unique son of God, He is God. Scripture is clear about that. It also makes it clear that Jesus is not a created son, but a begotten Son, and it was that that John was pointing out, that Jesus was like-for-like with God, that he was begotten.
Begotten, as defined by both the Nicene Creed and C. S. Lewis, is a much better description than only Son. And within John’s writings I believe it is a better word to use.
Does it matter? Maybe not, not if you know your scripture. However, in my opinion, if they were trying to be more clear about the deity of Christ, I don’t think they succeeded, to me, they have just confused things more.
References
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begotten ↩︎
- https://biblehub.com/greek/3439.htm ↩︎
- See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis ↩︎
- Taken from Mere Christianity Book 4 -Beyond Personality: Or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity – Chapter 1 – Making and begetting ↩︎
- Taken from https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/nicene-creed ↩︎
Leave a Reply