The argument for a ‘begettal’
overtone in v. 14 is the distant relationship of the adjective to the verb for ‘to
beget’, γεναω, and the presence of γενναω in John 1:13, “born . . . of God”.
This is a decisive argument in favour of ‘only begotten’ for John 1:14, 18, but
the overtone also fits with the emphasis in v. 14 on ‘from the Father’.
This is part of what distinguishes Jesus from John the Baptist and it is what
distinguishes Jesus from those who are metaphorically born of God—Jesus is the only
begotten of God. An overtone of ‘begettal’ is also required in John 3
because of the use of γενναω
in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:5) which sets the context for
John’s commentary in vv. 16, 18. And, moreover, γενναω is also present in the context of
1 John 4:9 (7) which suggests that the ‘only begotten’ is the way to complete
the adjective in that verse.
It is because Jesus’ distinctive
origins are a question (he is ‘of God’, John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) that John’s μονογενης is ‘only begotten’. The Nicene
and Post-Nicene Church Fathers recognised this reading of John in their stress
upon the begettal of the Son in its Trinitarian theology. So, for instance, the
4c CE Vulgate recognises this reading of GJohn is that it uses unigenitus
(‘only begotten’) for John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 and Heb 11:17, and unicus
(‘only’) in Luke 7:12; 8:42 and 9:38. Jerome was revising earlier Latin
manuscripts which had used only unicus in all the verses. This is a
second supporting argument in favour of ‘only-begotten’—the knowledge o the
possibilities of the Greek as used in GJohn on the part of the Fathers.
The repeated refrain ‘the only
begotten’ (μονογενη) of vv. 14, 18 is an allusion to
the episode of Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah. This is suggested by John the
Baptist’s description of Jesus as ‘The Lamb of God’ (John 1:29, 36).
And Abraham said, ‘My son, God will
provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.’ So they went both of them
together. Gen 22:8 (KJV)
And he said, ‘Lay not thine hand
upon the land, neither do thou anything unto him: for now, I know that thou
fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [The
Hebrew is ‘thine only’ which is picked up in ‘only begotten’ without ‘son’ in
John 1:14] from me’. Gen 22:12 (KJV revised)
By faith Abraham when he was
tried, offered up Issac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only
begotten (μονoγενη) . . . Accounting that God was
able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a
figure. Heb 11:17-19 (KJV revised)
Behold the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29-36, 3:17 (KJV)
Hebrews identifies the sacrifice
of Isaac as a ‘figure’ (παραβολη)
whereas we have used the notion of typology. Hebrews also emphasizes that the
same word twice in his prologue to describe Jesus and this secures Jesus’
identity as the anti-type to Isaac. On Moriah, God provided a ram rather than a
lamb (Gen 22:13), and with Abraham’s promise to Isaac that God would provide a
lamb, the reader is told there will be a lamb ‘of God’, which is precisely what
John records with the Baptist’s declaration, ‘Look, the lamb of God!’. The ‘Look!’
here is picking up Abraham’s name for the place of sacrifice which carries the
meaning, ‘The Lord will see’ and ‘of God’ is picking up ‘God’ + ‘provide’ (Gen
22:14) [The verb involved is the ordinary verb for ‘seeing’ but it is used
metaphorically in the account when Abraham answers Isaac’s question about the missing
sacrifice Abraham says to Isaac “God will see to it that there is a lamb” [Gen
22:8]. English translations usually render the verb as ‘The Lord will provide’.
With Isaac being an only son, and ‘giving’ being such a feature of the story,
we have an explanation of John 3:17, “he gave his only-begotten son”.].
Finally, we have in this typology an explanation of why we have ‘from the
Father’ in John 1:14. Abraham had said that God would provide a lamb and
so this has to come from the Father. John’s juxtaposition of ‘only
begotten’ and ‘from the Father’ interprets Abraham’s statement about a lamb in
terms of an only begotten one.
Although in his prologue John
presents the ‘sacrifice and resurrection’ of Isaac as a type of Jesus, the Lamb
of God, through whom the children of God are born, we could also identify the
Passover Lamb as a similar type through which, in this case, the nation was
delivered. Since Christ was a Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7), we might think that it
is this typology that John draws upon. However, though Jewish traditions
associated the two sacrifices we should keep them distinct when tracing types in
NT writings.
John the Baptist’s declaration
associates the lamb with sin, The Passover lamb teaches that a lamb will
deliver the people. The Isaac typology teaches that the nation that was of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been made through a figurative death and
resurrection, and this in turn is a type of a people that would be made through
Jesus’ death and resurrection. Jewish commentary associates both sacrifices
with the forgiveness of sin. And if we look elsewhere and ask what is through
Christ, we have texts such as Rom 5:9, believers are justified by his blood and
thereby ‘saved’ through him (cf. Col 1;20).
Finally, it is worth noting here a
connection with the baptism of Jesus and Moriah. The Angel of the Lord called
unto Abraham “out of heaven” and, in the same way, at the baptism of Jesus
there was a voice “out of heaven” (Gen 22:11; Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11). In both
cases the voice is about a son: ‘my . . . son’ and ‘thy son’. Interestingly the
LXX paraphrases the Hebrew as ‘your beloved son’ which is the terminology used at
Christ’s baptism.
An objection to this typology is
that Isaac wasn’t Abraham’s only-begotten son, there was Ishmael—so Isaac isn’t
a suitable type for Jesus being the only begotten son of God. Isaac was Abraham’s
‘only’ (יחיד) son (Gen 22:2), and yet Ishmael was also his son by Hagar. How so?
The objection proves too much. Hebrews shows that Isaac being the ‘only son of
Abraham is a type of Christ. How Jesus was ‘only’ like Isaac is in his divine
begettal. Isaac was miraculous son of promise (whereas Hagar was not and of the
flesh). What John is doing is pulling together Isaac’s ‘only’ status and his
miraculous birth with the compound adjective μονογενης. . . . .Our conclusion, based on
the foregoing, is that the correct sense for μονογενης is ‘only-begotten’. (Andrew
Perry, John 1:1-18 [1st ed. [7th revision]; Staffordshire, U.K.: Willow
Publications, 2022], 105-8)