Why is Jesus called the Only Begottten Son?

[Rescued One]

And why don't pastors teach on this topic? Am I weird for wanting information?

 

[John Bauer]

The phrase translates the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενής), which appears in several key passages (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Some modern translations render this as "one and only Son" (e.g., unique), which is not wrong, exactly, but certainly not complete. The traditional translation ("only begotten") more faithfully preserves the theological weight of the term as historically understood in the church.

Lexically, monogenēs is a compound of monos (only) and genos (kind or offspring). It can mean unique, but in the context of Johannine Christology it refers specifically to the Son's eternal relation to the Father. Christ is more than a unique Son; he is uniquely begotten, derived from the Father by eternal generation—a doctrine that is key to rightly understanding this. To say the Son is begotten is to affirm that he is from the Father in a way that is transcendent and eternal. He is not part of creation, but rather is of the same divine essence as the Father. He is "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made," as the Nicene Creed confesses.

This stands in contrast to our status as sons. We are adopted by grace, not begotten by nature, through union with the Son. Our sonship is not natural but legal and relational, grounded in our covenant union with Christ. Whereas Jesus is Son by nature, eternally begotten of the Father, we are sons by adoption, having once been alienated strangers and hostile in mind. We are brought into the family of God not by right but by sheer grace, and the Spirit of adoption (huiothesias) testifies to our new status. But it is Christ's unique sonship that secures and guarantees it. The one who was eternally begotten became flesh, so that we, through him, might become children of God.

Am I weird for wanting information?

Not at all.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Rescued One,

Why is Jesus called the Only Begottten Son?

The Only Begotten Son in John 1:14 refers to the events narrated in Matthew and Luke:

John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg Gk: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

These refer to the fact that Jesus is a human, the Son of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father by birth, character and resurrection. This teaches conception, not a supposed incarnation. God the Father is his father through the power of hi Holy Spirit, and Mary his mother.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Fred]

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life (NASB).

Only begotten (monogenēs) can also mean unique. For example, Isaac is called the only begotten in Hebrews 11:17 despite the fact that he was fourteen years younger than his brother Ishmael (Genesis 16:16; 21:5). Only begotten applies to Isaac because he was the unique son of Abraham in that the blessings God promised to Abraham would be through him (Genesis 17:19; 21:12). It should also be pointed out that although Christ is called the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Son of David, the Son of the Blessed One, etc., He is never referred to as "a child of God" (teknon Theou). The reason for this is that He never came into being by means of the Father creating Him.


1. BDAG (3rd Edition): pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) (monogenēs, page 658).
2. The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible: In Hebrews, it is used as in the LXX, Jubilees, and Josephus, with reference to Abraham's "favored, chosen, unique" son (Heb. 11:17). And this qualitative idea is uppermost in John's use of the term in regard to Jesus (Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18: 1 Jn. 4:9) (4:605, only begotten, R. N. Longenecker).

 

[John Bauer]

"... for that which is conceived (mg Gk: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. ... These refer to the fact that Jesus is a human, the Son of the one God, Yahweh, the Father by birth, character, and resurrection. This teaches conception, not a supposed incarnation.

Strong response against potential heresy:

Trevor exhibits confusion arising from a category error. The Greek word used in Matthew 1:20 is gennēthen (γεννηθὲν), an aorist passive participle of gennaō, which in this context clearly refers to conception in the womb. This is not the same word as monogenēs (μονογενής), which John uses to speak of Christ's eternal relationship to the Father. While gennaō can refer to begetting in a physical sense, monogenēs is used in a metaphysical and relational sense to describe Christ's unique, eternal sonship—not the incarnation, not the virgin birth, and certainly not mere humanity.

To conflate Matthew's gennaō with John's monogenēs is linguistically careless and theologically disastrous. The incarnation is not the origin of the Son, but rather his assumption of human nature (cf. John 1:1, 14; Gal 4:4; Phil 2:6-7).

"For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted"—well, we will not put up with it well enough (2 Cor. 11:4).

@TrevorL -- According to the site Rules & Guidelines (3.2), "those presenting opposing views [which challenge core Christian doctrines] must substantively engage with rebuttals rather than merely repeating assertions. Posts failing to meet this standard may be removed."

 

[John Bauer]

... Jesus is ... the Son of the one God... by birth, character and resurrection.

This is a reductionist Christology that makes Jesus the Son of God only after or because of his humanity, ethical excellence, or resurrection. This undermines both his eternal deity and his ontological sonship.

1. By birth? No. The incarnation reveals the Son; it does not originate him. Luke 1:35 affirms that the child to be born is already "the Son of God," not merely becoming Son but already so.

2. By character? No. This is moralism, not Christianity. Jesus is not merely a good man or prophet, he is the preexistent Logos (John 1:1) who shares the glory of the Father before the world existed (John 17:5).

3. By resurrection? No. Romans 1:4 says he was declared (not made) the Son of God with power by the resurrection. The resurrection is the public vindication of his divine sonship—not the origin of it. To say that he became the Son at resurrection is the ancient heresy of adoptionism, which was explicitly condemned by the early church.

 

[Eleanor]

Greetings Rescued One,
The Only Begotten Son in John 1:14 refers to the events narrated in Matthew and Luke:
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg Gk: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
These refer to the fact that Jesus is a human, the Son of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father by birth, character and resurrection.
This teaches conception, not a supposed incarnation. God the Father is his father through the power of hi Holy Spirit, and Mary his mother.

The conception of divine Spirit (God) in human flesh is incarnation; i.e., enfleshment of the divine Spirit.

 

[John Bauer]

Only begotten applies to Isaac because he was the unique son of Abraham in that the blessings God promised to Abraham would be through him (Genesis 17:19; 21:12).

The first time I read it, I was struck by the fact that God told Abraham, "Take your son—your only son, whom you love, Isaac" (Gen. 22:2), even though Ishmael existed.

 

[Eleanor]

The first time I read it, I was struck by the fact that God told Abraham, "Take your son—your only son, whom you love, Isaac" (Gen. 22:2), even though Ishmael existed.

The only son of promise.

 

[Fred]

The first time I read it, I was struck by the fact that God told Abraham, "Take your son—your only son, whom you love, Isaac" (Gen. 22:2), even though Ishmael existed.

Interesting.
Yes, thanks.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Lexically, monogenēs is a compound of monos (only) and genos (kind or offspring). It can mean unique, but in the context of Johannine Christology it refers specifically to the Son's eternal relation to the Father. Christ is more than a unique Son; he is uniquely begotten, derived from the Father by eternal generation—a doctrine that is key to rightly understanding this

I would agree with you on part of this statement above - with the exception of the bolded material. That part is not correct. "Eternal generation" is an invented term that is a self-contradicting oxymoron. Christ Jesus is not and has not been "eternally generated" by being continually "begotten" from the Father. To be generated is done at a single, specific point in time. It is not an action that is eternally being performed.

The meaning behind the "begotten" status is given to us in Psalms 2:77, which prophecy concerns the bodily-resurrected Jesus Christ ascending to the Father the morning after His resurrection: the only One who would have accomplished this as of that point in time. "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." We know that this request was asked and answered, because Christ told the disciples in Matthew 28:18 that this power over the nations had already been given to Him by the Father, even before His Acts 1 final ascension.

Paul in Acts 13:32-34 interprets this Psalms 2:7 passage about the timing for the ascended, resurrected Christ being "begotten" in heaven on that particular day. "And we declare unto you glad tidings, how God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David."

The Psalms also gives us the exact time of day that Christ Jesus was "begotten" in heaven on the day of His resurrection. Psalms 110:3 in the LXX describes the ascending, resurrected Christ this way: "With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning." Something was "born" in heaven before the morning dawned which had never appeared there before that time. We know that the bodily-resurrected Christ ascended to God in heaven "while it was yet dark" (John 20:1) before the morning had fully dawned, because He told Mary that He was about to ascend to God the Father at that time in John 20:17 - before the morning had fully come, just as Psalms 110:3 had predicted long ago.

Christ also claimed this unique "first-begotten of the dead" status in Revelation 1:5. As of that point in time, Christ Jesus was still the only one who had yet ascended to God the Father in heaven in a glorified, bodily-resurrected human form. He was still the "only-begotten" at that point.

But this "First-born" and "First-begotten" status that uniquely belonged to Christ would also be followed by Christ presenting the rest of the bodily-resurrected saints to the Father. They, too, would also be "begotten" by God in heaven in the same manner as Christ their brother who had been the first to precede them.

In other words, Christ Jesus may have been called the "Only-begotten of the Father" as of the time John 1:14 was written, but the "First-begotten" Christ would not always be the only one who would be "begotten" in this manner. All the saints are to be eventually "presented faultless before the presence of His glory, with exceeding joy" (Jude 24). "Behold, I and the children whom thou hast given me" is the picture of a triumphant First-born, First-begotten Christ presenting the bodily-resurrected children of God to His Father (Heb. 2:13). This is the point at which they, too, are also finally "begotten" in heaven by the Father in the perfected state of glorified incorruption.

 

[Rescued One]

The phrase translates the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενής), which appears in several key passages (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Some modern translations render this as "one and only Son" (e.g., unique), which is not wrong, exactly, but certainly not complete. The traditional translation ("only begotten") more faithfully preserves the theological weight of the term as historically understood in the church.

Lexically, monogenēs is a compound of monos (only) and genos (kind or offspring). It can mean unique, but in the context of Johannine Christology it refers specifically to the Son's eternal relation to the Father. Christ is more than a unique Son; he is uniquely begotten, derived from the Father by eternal generation—a doctrine that is key to rightly understanding this. To say the Son is begotten is to affirm that he is from the Father in a way that is transcendent and eternal. He is not part of creation, but rather is of the same divine essence as the Father. He is "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made," as the Nicene Creed confesses.

This stands in contrast to our status as sons. We are adopted by grace, not begotten by nature, through union with the Son. Our sonship is not natural but legal and relational, grounded in our covenant union with Christ. Whereas Jesus is Son by nature, eternally begotten of the Father, we are sons by adoption, having once been alienated strangers and hostile in mind. We are brought into the family of God not by right but by sheer grace, and the Spirit of adoption (huiothesias) testifies to our new status. But it is Christ's unique sonship that secures and guarantees it. The one who was eternally begotten became flesh, so that we, through him, might become children of God.




Not at all.

A zillion thanks! This sort of information means a lot to me. I LOVE it!

 

[Rescued One]

Thanks to everyone for your interest and replies.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings John Bauer,

@TrevorL -- According to the site Rules & Guidelines (3.2), "those presenting opposing views [which challenge core Christian doctrines] must substantively engage with rebuttals rather than merely repeating assertions. Posts failing to meet this standard may be removed."

I am not sure why you quoted this rule. I was directly replying to the OP and stating my position in simple and direct terms. Rescued One has now responded and gives the impression that he/she is satisfied with your answer. I could defend and expand on what I have stated, but this does not seem necessary. Perhaps a brief response to one of your statements:

2. By character? No. This is moralism, not Christianity. Jesus is not merely a good man or prophet, he is the preexistent Logos (John 1:1) who shares the glory of the Father before the world existed (John 17:5).

I am not stating that Jesus is merely a good man or prophet, I was alluding to John 1:14:
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
This is not speaking of physical glory, but moral glory, his character, he was full of grace and truth.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Fred]

Whenever a Unitarian answers a question concerning who Jesus is their post ought to be allowed and just be tagged with that Yuck Face we see put certain containers in the house warning people of the deadly toxins they contain.

Just my suggestion anyway.


Here's an example:

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Fred,

Whenever a Unitarian answers a question concerning who Jesus is their post ought to be allowed

I appreciate the opportunity to post on this forum despite my differences in Bible understanding to the Administrators and Moderators and Fred. I have been banned from three forums because I do not advocate the Trinity. I have been tolerated on another forum but I have mainly posted in a sub-forum labeled Christadelphianism and this is placed in a Cult category. This had been my favourite forum since 2004, but an episode of spam wiped out all the threads in our sub-forum. More recently my old computer, or browser or their faulty program does not allow me to participate except that the only thread that I succeeded in adding is labeled "A few thoughts on Psalm 1". I consider my main reason for participating in forums is that I like to participate in interesting and sometimes challenging subjects.

just be tagged with that Yuck Face we see put certain containers in the house warning people of the deadly toxins they contain.
Just my suggestion anyway.

I do not consider that this is at all polite and I am disappointed that you have suggested this. No other member has added such a symbol on either of my two threads so far. I am not worried if you disparage me personally, but I am concerned if you disparage some of what I have stated, especially if what I have stated is Biblical truth. I notice that you have not responded to either of the two posts that I added.

A few brief statements concerning two aspects raised. I believe in the conception, not the incarnation. I believe that God the Father was the father of the human, Jesus, and as such Jesus is the Son of God. The character of Jesus, full of grace and truth, is attributable to the fact that the human Jesus was begotten by God his father, and also to the care and education of Jesus by God his father until the time of his ministry when John beheld his moral glory.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Fred]

I do not consider that this is at all polite and I am disappointed that you have suggested this.

2 Cor. 10:5

No other member has added such a symbol on either of my two threads so far. I am not worried if you disparage me personally, but I am concerned if you disparage some of what I have stated, especially if what I have stated is Biblical truth.

Affirming Jesus is not God is never Biblical truth.

I notice that you have not responded to either of the two posts that I added.

I have already pointed out to you (more than once with proof) that Jesus is God. You eventually stop responding (which doesn't last very long) because your false teaching can't be defended.

I believe that God the Father was the father of the human, Jesus, and as such Jesus is the Son of God.

Unitarians will use biblical terminology but deny what they mean in order to deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Fred,

Unitarians will use biblical terminology but deny what they mean in order to deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

This is to acknowledge your post. To add to Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 I add the following which is relevant to the title of this thread:

2 Samuel 7:12–16 (KJV): 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Fred]

Greetings again Fred,

This is to acknowledge your post. To add to Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 I add the following which is relevant to the title of this thread:

2 Samuel 7:12–16 (KJV): 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Kind regards
Trevor

When Jesus is referred to as the Son of God it is linked with the fact that He is God.

The Son of God (John 20:31) is "my God" (John 20:28).

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Fred,

When Jesus is referred to as the Son of God it is linked with the fact that He is God.

Do you have any problem with the concept that God the Father is the father of the human Jesus in the conception/begettal process. Consider both Matthew 1 and Luke 1.

Matthew 1:1–3 (KJV): 1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

This is the start of a genealogy tracing from two important national fathers, Abraham and David. Do you have any problem with the repetitive use of the word "begat" here, to describe the relationship between each father with his son. This listing continues on down until verses 18-21 where we find the exception, that Jacob is not the physical father of the child Jesus, but God the Father is the father through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:18–21 (KJV): 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg Gk: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Similarly the account in Luke:
Luke 1:26–35 (KJV): 26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

To me, the language of both of these accounts is unequivocal. God the Father is the father of the human Jesus, and hence Jesus is the Son of God.

The Son of God (John 20:31) is "my God" (John 20:28).

John 20:28–31 (KJV): 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I do not accept that John or Thomas are equating "the Son of God" with "God" or "God the Son". I consider that there are two acceptable explanations and both could be valid. The first hearkens back to the following conversation which included Thomas and Philip where Jesus explains that he reveals the One God, God the Father:
John 14:4–11 (KJV): 4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

The second hearkens back to where Jesus shows that the word "God" and "gods" (and the Hebrew word "Elohim") can be applied to the Judges in Israel, and hence on other occasions to the Angels. Both of these categories revealed and represented God. How much more, Jesus the Son of God, and this is what Jesus claims in verse 36 which is a summary or interpretation of verse 30..
John 10:30–36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Kind regards
Trevor