Friday, March 11, 2022

A Defence of μονογενης being translated as "only-begotten"

  

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)