These two main uses or meanings can be easily
distinguished by the context. If it is in a familial context, it almost always
means “only begotten,” “only born,” or “only child.” If it is in a nonfamilial
context, such as the phoenix or a church building, then it almost always means
“unique.” In other words, one rarely, if ever, sees a child being referred to
as μονογενης in
order to say that the child is “unique.”
In addition, it is striking that the church fathers were
unanimous in taking μονογενης in the Johannine literature to mean “only begotten.”
For example, the word was rendered unigenitus in Latin Christian
literature beginning with Tertullian, and no one ever objected that unigenitus
was an overtranslation or a mistranslation. The same is true of the Greek
Christian writers. They understood the word μονογενης, as
an ordinary Greek word, and when used in familial contexts, to mean “only
begotten” or “only child,” and as implying “not having siblings.”
The church fathers
explicitly addressed the question of μονογενης in ordinary Greek usage. Basil of Caesarea did so when
writing a refutation of an Arian named Eunomius who had argued that the word
meant “begotten of only one parent.” Basil mercilessly mocks him and says “the
entire world” knows that this is not what the word means:
So if he is called “only begotten” not because he is the
only one begotten (το
μονος γεγεννησθαι), but because he is
begotten from only one [parent], and if in your view being created is the same
thing as being begotten, why didn’t you also name him the “only-created”? For
there is no thought that you don’t have a knack for expressing! At any rate,
according to your account it seems that no human being is only-begotten since
everyone is begotten as the result of sexual intercourse. . . . If your
opinions were to prevail, it would be necessary for the entire world to
re-learn this term, that the name “only-begotten” does not indicate a lack of
siblings (μονωσεως
αδελφων) but the absence of a pair of
procreators. (Against Eunomius 2.21)
Basil thinks the word
μονογενης, in
ordinary usage as applied to human beings, and as recognized by “the entire
world,” means “the only begotten” (το
μονος γεγεννησθαι)
and indicates “a lack of siblings.” Athanasius said much the same thing: “The
term μονογενης is used where there are no brethren.” (Against the
Arians 2.62) And so did Gregory of Nyssa; “He who is μονογενης has no
brother; for if he were numbered among brethren he would not be only-begotten.
. . . The term μονογενης necessarily excludes the notion of brethren.” (Against
Eunomius 2.7-8) (Charles
Lee Irons, “Only Begotten God: Eternal Generation, a Scriptural Doctrine,” in On
Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God,
ed. Matthew Barrett [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2024], 404-5)
I say “rarely” out of
reference to those, like D. A. Carson, who claim that the application of the
term to Isaac in Hebrews 11:17 is just a case. Yet there are no English
versions that render μονογενης
as “unique” or “one of a kind” in
Hebrews 11:17. Carson himself offers the rendering “his one and only [son]”
(cf. NIV), which proves my point (Carson, “John 5:26: Crux Interpretum,”
88). Part of the explanation for this outlier case, I think, is that μονογενης was
simply the stereotyped Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word yāchîd (see
Aquila at Genesis 22:2; Symmachus at Genesis 22:12; Josephus, Ant.
1.222). In any case, even if Hebrews 11:27 is ultimately decided to be an
instance where the word means “Unique,” it would only confirm that this is one
of the uses of the word (as I have acknowledged) and would not rule out “only
begotten” in other contexts. (Ibid., 405 n. 16)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
