Only Begotten
Only-begotten
(, from. , only, and , to be born), an epithet of Jesus Christ, expressive of his peculiar relation to the Godhead (Joh 1:14, etc.). The term properly means an only child (Luk 7:12). SEE SON OF GOD.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Only Begotten
ONLY BEGOTTEN
1. Meaning.There is no doubt that the term only begotten indicates a nuance of the Greek which is very seldom emphasized. As H. Schmidt proves, the word has in general usage entirely lost the early sexual sense of the root . It means simply to arise, to become. It signifies that that which previously was not there and had no existence comes into being; is what alone acquires or has existence, it is merely a fuller form for (as = , = , = ). When we have to do with living beingsmen or animalsthe meaning born, begotten is, of course, congruous, but there is no emphasis whatever attached to this side. When Christ is designated , the emphasis is laid not on the fact that He as Son was born or begotten (in contrast to being created or made), but that He is the only Son, that as Son of God He has no equal. The Latin translators were quite right when originally they rendered the expression simply by filius unicus, not by filius unigenitus. It was the dogmatic disputes as to the inner essential relations between Christ and God, especially those raised by Arius, which first gave occasion for emphasizing the point that Christ as the Son of God was a begotten Son, i.e. that He did not form part of the creation. After that it became a general custom to render by unigenitus, only begotten. In the original form of the so-called Apostolic Symbolthe Old Roman Symbolwe read: ; and in the Latin text, which in all probability belongs to the same date (i.e. in any case some time in the 2nd cent.): et in Christum Jesum filium eius unicum dominum nostrum. In the Latin, there is nothing to distinguish whether unicum is to be connected with filium eius or dominum nostrum. The present writer, in an exhaustive inquiry into the historical meaning of the original form of the Apostolic Symbol (see Literature cited at end), has defended the hypothesis that the latter combination is the correct one. Then, of course, the before in the traditional Greek form must be an interpolation. Such an interpolation could easily arise in later times, because the title was well known from the Johannine writings as an honorific designation of Jesus, whereas in the NT the title does not occur (only occurs, 1Co 8:6). As far as the language is concerned, there is absolutely no reason why Christ should not be designated ; and the thought, which then finds a place in the Symbol, is a particularly pregnant one. The combination of with , not with , is favoured by two considerations: first, that in the Symbol there is nothing that recalls Johannine ideas (much, on the other hand, suggesting Pauline thought); and, secondly, that there are a number of Latin texts where, undoubtedly, unicum is connected with dominum nostrum.
2. NT usage.In the NT the expression is used only of Christ by John (Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18, 1Jn 4:9). The passage Joh 1:14 is a contested reading, and in any case comes only indirectly into comparison. Elsewhere in the New Test, the expression occurs in Luk 7:12 (the young man of Nain), Luk 8:42 (the daughter of Jairus), Luk 9:38 (the demoniac boy), Heb 11:17 (Isaac). In the LXX Septuagint is frequently the translation of , especially wherever the idea of uniqueness or aloneness seems to be emphasized: Jdg 11:34, Psa 22:20; Psa 25:16; Psa 35:17; (cf. also Tob 3:15; Tob 6:10; Tob 6:14; Tob 8:17). The expression acquires a qualitative secondary meaning from the fact that what is unique is naturally of special value. An only son is a specially beloved son. This secondary meaning belongs in all likelihood to the expression in Jn. also. Cremer compares with it the term used by St. Paul in Rom 8:32 . In the LXX Septuagint , where this secondary meaning is emphasized, the rendering is chosen for : Gen 22:2; Gen 22:12; Gen 22:16, Jer 6:26, Amo 8:10, Zec 12:10. In the Synoptics (in the narratives of the Baptism and the Transfiguration), where Christ is called , could hardly be substituted. The expression here corresponds to the of Isa 42:1 [LXX Septuagint ] (for in Luk 9:35 Cod. B and other Manuscripts give ). In all the passages in Jn., with the exception of Joh 1:14, it seems we might substitute the expression for .
Joh 1:14.This passage is of interest because the question arises whether instead of we ought not to read . Hort strongly supports this view with a brilliant display of learning, and has proved that the latter reading was very widespread in the Ancient Church. It is to be found in a number of good Manuscripts of the Gospel: BCL 33 and in the Pesh. and Coptic versions. He also argues, in support of it, that the whole Prologue leads up to it, and, to say the least, suffers in unity if it is taken away. Supposing that we have to accept this reading, it appears to the present writer probable that St. John, in applying this predicate to Christ, was influenced by regard to a non-Christian religious employment of the notions of and , and that the expression has thus in his writings a special secondary meaning in addition. For the term occurs in the Valentinian (Ptolemaic) system as the name of one of the aeons (Irenaeus, i. 1 ff., ed. Harvey). Wobbermin, however, has shown that the term was of special significance in the Orphic mysteries, seeing that it occurs there as the personal name of a powerful incomparable divinity. Just as St. John took over from the Hellenistic philosophy the title Logos for Christ, in order to remove from the minds of Christians the fear that there was beyond Christ a higher mediator between God and man, so he might have taken over from the highly important Orphic cult the title Monogenes, in order to show Christians that they knew Him who is in reality the . We should then have to suppose that St. John has invested the expression with a meaning which was foreign to general and popular usage, but which probably corresponded with the use of the word in Orphic circles. That is to say, it is possible to interpret the term as designating Christ as (cf. a name of an aeon in the Barbelognosis [Iren. i. xxix. 1], a description of mankind in Clem. Rom. [Note: Roman.] [First Ep. to Cor. xxxix. 2] etc.). Christ would then be the God who proceeded from the only, i.e. from the true God, the Son who sprang from the unique One. In that case the idea of , noted above as the secondary meaning which per se everywhere best suits the context, would recede into the background, But the present writer does not regard it as likely that St. John knew anything of Orphism. In the whole Gospel there is nothing else to suggest this. It might, indeed, be said that the conception of the Logos in the Prologue is the only trace of Hellenism in the Fourth Gospel. But in the first place this is not quite correct, and again in itself it is much more likely that John [the author of the Gospel is unmistakably a Jew] knew the philosophy of Philo than that he was acquainted with the Orphic system. Thus the present writer believes that it was persons like Clement of Alexandria who were first reminded of the Orphic titles of the aeons by the predicate applied to Christ as Son of God. He further holds that the Church so far thought she was acting wisely in making out of the of Joh 1:14 a , in order to be able with more assurance to meet both Orphism and Gnosticism.
Literature.F. J. A. Hort, Two Dissertations, i. On ; B. F. Westcott, The use of the term in the Epistles of St. John, p. 169 ff.; H. Cremer, Wrterbuch der neutest. Graecitt; J. H. Heinrich Schmidt, Synonymik der griech. Sprache, ii. p. 530 ff.; F. Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol, ii. p. 581 ff.; G. Wobbermin, Religionsgesch. Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen, p. 114 ff.; Beyschlag, NT Theology (English translation ), ii. 414 ff.
Ferdinand Kattenbusch.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Only Begotten
onli be-got-‘n (, monogenes): Although the English words are found only 6 times in the New Testament, the Greek word appears 9 times, and often in the Septuagint. It is used literally of an only child: the only son of his mother (Luk 7:12); an only daughter (Luk 8:42); mine only child (Luk 9:38); Isaac … his only begotten (Heb 11:17). In all other places in the New Testament it refers to Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God (Joh 1:14, Joh 1:18; Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18; 1Jo 4:9). In these passages, too, it might be translated as the only son of God; for the emphasis seems to be on His uniqueness, rather than on His sonship, though both ideas are certainly present. He is the son of God in a sense in which no others are. Monogenes describes the absolutely unique relation of the Son to the Father in His divine nature; prototokos describes the relation of the Risen Christ in His glorified humanity to man (Westcott on Heb 1:6). Christ’s uniqueness as it appears in the above passages consists of two things: (a) He reveals the Father: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (Joh 1:18). Men therefore behold His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father (Dan 1:14). (b) He is the mediator of salvation: God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him (1Jo 4:9; Joh 3:16); He that believeth not (on him) hath been judged already (Joh 3:18). Other elements in His uniqueness may be gathered from other passages, as His sinlessness, His authority to forgive sins, His unbroken communion with the Father, and His unique knowledge of Him. To say that it is a uniqueness of nature or essence carries thought no farther, for these terms still need definition, and they can be defined only in terms of His moral consciousness, of His revelation of God, and especially of His intimate union as Son with the Father. See also BEGOTTEN; PERSON OF CHRIST; SON OF GOD.
The reading God only begotten in Joh 1:18 the Revised Version margin, though it has strong textual support, is improbable, and can well be explained as due to orthodox zeal, in opposition to adoptionism. See Grimm-Thayer, Lexicon; Westcott, at the place
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Only Begotten
is used five times, all in the writings of the Apostle John, of Christ as the Son of God; it is translated “only begotten” in Heb 11:17 of the relationship of Isaac to Abraham.
With reference to Christ, the phrase “the only begotten from the Father,” Joh 1:14, RV (see also the marg.), indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him. In the original the definite article is omitted both before “only begotten” and before “Father,” and its absence in each case serves to lay stress upon the characteristics referred to in the terms used. The Apostle’s object is to demonstrate what sort of glory it was that he and his fellow Apostles had seen. That he is not merely making a comparison with earthly relationships is indicated by para, “from.” The glory was that of a unique relationship and the word “begotten” does not imply a beginning of His Sonship. It suggests relationship indeed, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man.
We can only rightly understand the term “the only begotten” when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. “The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not ‘after’ the Father” (Moule). The expression also suggests the thought of the deepest affection, as in the case of the OT word yachid, variously rendered, “only one,” Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12; “only son,” Jer 6:26; Amo 8:10; Zec 12:10; “only beloved,” Pro 4:3, and “darling,” Psa 22:20; Psa 35:17.
In Joh 1:18 the clause “the only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father,” expresses both His eternal union with the Father in the Godhead and the ineffable intimacy and love between them, the Son sharing all the Father’s counsels and enjoying all His affections. Another reading is monogenes Theos, “God only-begotten.” In Joh 3:16 the statement, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son,” must not be taken to mean that Christ became the only begotten son by incarnation. The value and the greatness of the gift lay in the Sonship of Him who was given. His Sonship was not the effect of His being given. In Joh 3:18 the phrase “the name of the only begotten son of God” lays stress upon the full revelation of God’s character and will, His love and grace, as conveyed in the name of One who, being in a unique relationship to Him, was provided by Him as the object of faith. In 1Jo 4:9 the statement “God hath sent His only begotten son into the world” does not mean that God sent out into the world one who at His birth in Bethlehem had become His Son. Cp. the parallel statement, “God sent forth the Spirit of His Son,” Gal 4:6, RV, which could not mean that God sent forth One who became His Spirit when He sent Him.