The translation of the Greek word μονογενής in the New Testament is a subject of debate. The term appears nine times, with four occurrences referring to ordinary “only children,” and the other five occurrences in Christological contexts, all in the Johannine literature. These Christological occurrences are the ones under debate. There are three main options: the traditional “only begotten,” the revisionist “unique,” and the more recent suggestion, “only Son.” Against the rendering “unique,” it is argued that the word can have that meaning in non-familial contexts in extra-biblical Greek, but in familial contexts it typically means “only offspring.” The word is thus polysemous, and the decision to render it as “unique” or “only offspring” depends on the context, specifically whether it is non-familial or familial. All nine occurrences in the New Testament are familial; thus, “unique” does not fit for any of the New Testament occurrences. Recently, some scholars have come to recognize that “unique” is not appropriate for the New Testament occurrences, but hesitancy to go all the way back to the traditional “only begotten” remains. Greek scholar Dr. Seumas MacDonald is one example of this trend. Dr. MacDonald agrees with Dr. Irons that “unique” is incorrect for the Johannine occurrences. Still, he differs in arguing that the traditional Latin-based rendering “only begotten” carries more freight than the Greek requires. Dr. MacDonald argues that a rendering like “only Son” or “siblingless Son” will do. This approach, or something close to it, appears to have been adopted by the ESV Translation Oversight Committee in its most recent 2025 update. In response, it is argued that this rendering “only Son,” while an improvement on the revisionist “unique,” still falls short. The traditional “only begotten” is explicitly defended by the church fathers from a very early period and enjoys virtually unanimous support. In addition, and most importantly, the Nicene Creed uses the word in its scriptural logic supporting the homoousion. We may sympathize with the desire of modern English versions to avoid the archaic word “begotten,” but such considerations should not outweigh the theological significance of maintaining concordance with the Nicene Creed. It is desirable to render the word “only begotten” to ensure that our English versions are in sync with historic Trinitarian orthodoxy. Read more»
Lee Irons | “Unique, Only Son, or Only Begotten Translating Mονογενής” | May 9, 2025
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
MacDonald argues that “only begotten” goes beyond the import of the Greek (or “carries more freight”, as it were.) Yet in this excerpt I didn’t see where Irons rebuts that claim. Instead, Irons defends the traditional use of “only begotten” merely by pointing to the tradition: the fathers and the creed. He, also, states that “only Son” falls short of the meaning of “only begotten Son,” with which I agree, but then seems to suggest that the reason behind the modern translation is “to avoid the archaic word “begotten.”” So, he seems to base his point on tradition and then dismisses the modern translation as merely trying to avoid archaic language.
Well stated. Are the creeds merely tradition or is it the work of earnest churchmen trying to articulate Trinitarian and Christological truth precisely?
Thank you for posting Dr Irons’ essay, bringing the complexities and challenges believers must navigate in order to confess the Truth in our Confession. The Only Begotten Son is the Substance of God; the Trinitarian Doctrine relies on a ‘right translation’.
It seems to me (from a Greek 1 level of knowledge) that “only begotten” is the best way to translate μονογενής. It seems like a compound word made from μόνος (only, the single) and γεννάω (I sire/beget/give birth to). Furthermore, wouldn’t it be incorrect to say that Christ is the only son of God. Heidelberg 33 (leaning on John 1:12, Rom. 8:14-17, and Eph. 1:5-6) helpfully says that “Christ alone is the eternal, natural Son of God. We, however, are adopted children of God—adopted by grace for the sake of Christ.” I think this helpful and (more importantly) biblical statement is best reflected in calling Christ the only begotten Son.
Obviously I welcome any correction and clarification where my Greek knowledge is lacking.
From my memory, the debate concerns the second word in the compound, whether it is in fact γεννάω, or if it is γίνομαι (to be/ become). The former does support the traditional rendering, the latter is used to argue for the modern.