Username Password
Create New Login

Topic: John 1:18 Monogenes? (3 Posts)

Message: John 1:18 Monogenes?
Posted by anonymous on Saturday, 01-Oct-2011 00:46:42 EDT
The two Greek words “monogenes theos” from John 1:18 mean “onlybegotten god,” so why do some render “monogenes” unique when “monogenes” (one – beginning) does not read thus? DR
Message: Re: John 1:18 Monogenes?
Posted by m.jesus on Wednesday, 07-Dec-2011 15:58:16 EST
I've updated the word, and this is a repost of the justification posted on John 3:16: Strong's G3439(Greek) "monogenēs" translates I believe as "only born in-kind". The translation of this word is difficult and has been controversial. The first half of the word "mono" clearly means "only" coming from being "one-ly". The second half is unclear, as genes (associated with the word Genesis) incorporats the elements of both being birthed (or born) and being of a kind (or kin)— whereby we also derive the word "kindred". This lack of clarity leads some translators to take the path of translating this word "only born" (hence: only-begotten) while others take the path of "only of kind" (hence: one and only, one of a kind, only). But it can be argued that neither of these completely capture the meaning of the word, as at the time it was in use it was associated phonetically in the original language with both generation and kind, having a source etymologically related. But more important is how the word was used. This word was applied in Hebrews 11:17 to Isaac, the son of Abraham, in a reference to the promise of God— in which Isaac was called Abraham's "monogenēs". However, Isaac was not Abraham's "only born", as Abraham also fathered Ishmael, and fathered him first. Isaac was also not Abraham's "only of kin", as Abraham had other kin (of his kind), such as his brothers Nahor and Haran, and his father Terah. And so rendering monogenēs "only of kin" or "one of kind" or simply "one and only" lacks the element present of also having been generated as seed. This is important, as when those who came up to Jesus asked him to heal their children, they would sometimes say, "He(or she) is my monogenēs.", and the way it was said arguably leaves one with the sense of being an only child and not being an only-of-kin. What Isaac was, however, is the "only born-in-kind" to that of Abraham, which is: He was of Abraham's kin (or kind) first and foremost, but also he was a generated (or birthed) descendant thereof— i.e. a child, as opposed to a brother or sister or father. But in the case of Hebrews 11:17, he was also of Abraham's kind (or kin) in the sense that he was the one descendant through which the promise of God was to be reckoned. So this word also encompassed a spiritually-born kind— through a word that originated as a term where fleshly kin were born (or generated). Jesus therefore, being called God's "only born in-kin" son, can be taken to mean that he is the only son who is born after God's kin (or kind). As Christians we refer to God as our father, and we are called his children, but we were not initially born in-kind to that of God. Although when we become "born from above", we then become part of God's kin (or family kind) through something that has been associated with adoption.
Message: Re: John 1:18 Monogenes?
Posted by m.jesus on Wednesday, 07-Dec-2011 16:10:55 EST Revised by m.jesus [m.jesus] on Wednesday, 07-Dec-2011 16:11:19 EST
As for the theos part, the issue there is that in other manuscript families it is rendered "son". So there is a theological matter there for some, and definitely a perception issue, when and also if you capitalize the "G". There is no definite article before the word theos here, and so even if rendered as god I would argue it should not be capital. This still makes the reading more difficult to understand though, as you'd need to have a complete understanding of the word theos in conjunction with teachings such as John 10:34-38 to not be confused about the monotheism issue, which many lack. To me the passage could either be rendered "only born in-kind son" or "only born in-kind god" or even "only born in-kind son of god" as a kind of justifiable compromise, but what should not be done is where some would try to explain the monogenes theos text in their own words, and produce something like NIV 2011 did. Yuck I say.