John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
What does that title, “only begotten Son,” mean? And is it a reference to the birth of Jesus?
“Only Begotten” Does not Refer to Christ’s Human Birth
Because “begotten” usually refers to human birth, sometimes people get confused about what it means when Jesus is called God’s only begotten Son. One reason for the confusion is because they misunderstand a verse in Hebrews.
Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
This verse, taken on its own, would appear to tell us that Jesus was begotten on a particular day in time, which would fit well with His birth. But perhaps a closer look is necessary, since the Bible says repeatedly that Jesus is eternal, has always existed. The verse is quoting from Psalms.
Psalm 2:7-8
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
These verses connect Christ’s being “begotten” to His triumph over the nations, which will take place at His return. The Psalm is also quoted by Paul in Acts 13.
Act 13:32-33
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 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.
Here, this same passage is connected to Christ’s resurrection. The fact that the Son is begotten of the Father relates to His resurrection from the dead and His triumphal return. So it seems safe to say, whatever this passage means, it is looking at something far more extensive than the time when the Son of God became a man and was born as Jesus of Nazareth.
Breaking Down “Only Begotten”
“Only begotten” comes from a single Greek word, monogenes. This is a compound word, with the first half, monos, meaning “only.” The second half derives from the verb ginomai (meaning “to be” or “to come into existence” or “to be made”) or its noun form, genos (meaning “family” or “kind” — related to our modern English word “genetics”).
Most modern translations translate the Greek word monogenes as “only,” “one and only,” or “unique.” The Authorised Version uses “only begotten.” As we’ll see, there is no one or two-word translation into English that fully gets the meaning of this word — it is a word that will need a little bit of explanation.
Only-Begotten in Hebrews
The term “only begotten” is only used by John in reference to the Lord Jesus. He uses it in the Gospel of John in four places (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18), and once in the epistle of I John (4:9). Luke also used it three times to refer to someone’s only child, but there is one other place the word appears, and it is a very interesting case.
Hebrews 11:17-19
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Isaac is called Abraham’s “only begotten son” — but Abraham had an earlier son, Ishmael, by a concubine (Hagar). Ishmael was physically the son of Abraham, but God here says that Isaac was his monogenes, his only-begotten, son.
This indicates clearly that “only” or “one and only” is an insufficient translation for monogenes — Isaac was not Abraham’s “only” son. “Unique” might work, but how is Isaac unique as Abraham’s son? He was born of Abraham’s true wife, not a concubine, according to God’s promise. The –genes part of monogenes, then, appears more associated with genos (family, kind) than with ginomai (existing, being, coming into existence). Ishmael had been born and was still existing, but he was not truly of the same family (genos) as Abraham in the way Isaac was.
“Only begotten” from the Authorised Version can sound like an only child, and it doesn’t mean that at all. When modern translations use “unique” or “only”, they try to prevent confusion over that — but create another kind of confusion. The example in Hebrews shows this is an incomplete translation of the word. If God had wanted to say “only” or “unique” He could have just used the Greek word monos. The way it is used in Hebrews appears to mean “the only one of the same kind” — the –genes is part of this word for a reason, and that reason seems to fit well with its genos root.
Monogenes, Only Begotten, in John 1
John 1:14, 18
14 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.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Here in verse fourteen, and again a few verses later, John refers to Jesus as the monogenes, the only begotten Son. Why? What is he telling us? Perhaps the two verses immediately preceding will help us.
John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Immediately before Jesus is called “the only begotten,” we read that those who receive Him become God’s children, born of God. John is drawing a clear contrast between the sons of God mentioned in verse 12 and Jesus, who is not just any Son, but the only begotten One.
The Word, Jesus, is God (verse 1). He is Creator, life, and light (verses 3-6). We may become the sons of God, but we are not of the same Kind as the Father. Our genos, our family or kind, is different. We must be born again into God’s family, but Jesus always is, was, and will be of the same Kind, the same “genetics” if we may say so, as the Father. We are sons, but we are not sons the way He is a Son. He is monogenes, only begotten.
Only Begotten in John 3
John 3:16, 18
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Here again we see the term referred to Jesus, and here again the context is helpful.
John 3:5-8
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
This is the famous “born again” discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus. To enter the kingdom of God, we must be born again, born of the Spirit, and thus become God’s children. But not Jesus — He is a Son, too, but He is the only begotten Son, the only one of the same kind as the Father. Again monogenes, only begotten, contrasts between Jesus and those who are God’s children by the new birth.
Monogenes in I John
I John 4:9
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
This is the only other place, besides John chapters 1 and 3, where Jesus is called the only begotten Son, and again it is John who is writing. Again, the context is helpful, for two verses earlier, we find this.
I John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
Immediately before calling Jesus monogenes, “only begotten,” John spoke of us as being born of God. As with all the other places John used the word, there was a sharp contrast between those who are born again, born of God, sons of God, and the One who is God’s Son in a very different way. He is unique, but He is more than unique, He is the only One who is of the same Kind as the Father.
Monogenes Defined
“Only begotten,” the Greek word monogenes, does not mean Jesus came into existence by being born. But nor does it just mean He is the only Son, or that He is unique. “Only begotten” when attributed to Jesus means He is the “only One of the same Kind” as the Father.
That is how John uses the word. That meaning also fits with how the word is used in Hebrews, of Isaac — he was Abraham’s only son who was truly of his family, born of his wife as God had promised. That meaning, of course, fits with any normal human family which has only one child, which is how Luke uses the word.
But John uses it to sharply contrast us, God’s second-birth children, with Jesus Christ, the Only-One-of-the-Same-Kind Son. In giving us the glorious truth that we are born of God, he does not want us to lose sight of just who the Lord Jesus Christ is.
After all, John wrote “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His Name” (John 20:31). He wrote that we may know that God’s only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, “is the true God, and eternal life” (I John 5:20). John would never allow his readers to forget the difference between us and our Lord.
Mind Renewers 
Great explanation!!! I really enjoyes reading this thank you. I just have a question could you please explain Colossians 1:15-16 and the context of “firstborn” there. Thank you!
I apologise for the delay in clearing this through moderation, the blog has been dormant a long time.
I decided to write on this question on the front page. I hope you find it useful: https://mindrenewers.com/2019/09/24/jesus-christ-the-firstborn/
i thought that only begotten means one of many
I’m not sure where that idea came from but the whole force of “only” is “unique.” “Begotten” gives the scope of the uniqueness.
Pingback: The Meaning of “Only-Begotten” - Winning Thoughts Ministry
Great article. Lots of insight here, however I would submit that you are stretching the conclusion too far. That Jesus was the only son begotten directly from God (not from a man and not from the dust of the earth) is evident. That Jesus is therefore God does not follow. The bible could not be more plain that he is the only begotten SON of God. It is precisely because God “overshadowed” Mary and she concieved that when Jesus was born he was called “SON”. See Luke 1:35. To be a son is to be a male that is born. To be an only begotten son of God is to be a male born of the “seed” (if you will) of God. Jesus is the only son born in this way. This does not make him “the true God” as you tweaked the intent of 1 John 5:20. That would be in contradiction to Jesus’s own words… John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The non contradictory way to understand 1 John 5:20 is that we are in him that is true(God) when we are in his son Jesus Christ. This is the true God(Jesus’s father) and eternal life(knowing him and his son per Jesus in John 17:3).
Remember, Ephesians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ…
And remember also, Acts 2:36 …God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
This all to represent the Lord Jesus Christ and his God as the scriptures do. Phillipians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Due to the after-effects of my wife’s passing, I’ve not cleared comments from moderation for a while. I apologize for that.
Your definition of monogenes (only-begotten) does not explain why it was used of Isaac, when Ishmael existed. It also flies in the face of many passages which clearly affirm the full deity of Christ. I’ve discussed this elsewhere on this blog and don’t want to readdress it in this comment section. Even the Jehovah’s Witness’ New World Translation has many passages that affirm the deity of Christ, if they were willing to look at it carefully. There are articles on that on the blog, feel free to search for them.
Jon, I am sorry for your loss. May God supply all of your needs.
Monogenes (μονογενής) has two primary definitions, “pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship” and “pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind”. Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean “one of a kind, one and only”. Monogenēs may be used as an adjective.
Jesus and Isaac are both “monogenes” sons to thier fathers by way of this definition. No contradiction or problem there. Jesus is “called” God in the bible but only one person is God “proper”.
This is Jesus’s God.
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Shouldn’t we have the same conception of God as Jesus did?
Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Thank you for your kind words.
It is surely strange to say that Jesus is “called” God in the Bible but to conclude that He is not God “proper.” To Him are attributed abundant attributes that can be attributed to God alone. We are the sheep of His hand (John 10:27-28) and the sheep of Jehovah-God’s hand (Psalm 95). He shares the same name (not names) with the Father (Matthew 28:18-20). He is called God, and the angels of God worship Him (Hebrews 1), something they would not do with anyone but God, for God will not give His glory to another (Isaiah 45).
I am willing to engage on the deity of Christ but not any further on this article. Most of this ground I’ve already covered with others on the articles I’ve mentioned, and I don’t have time to rehash it. If you look up those articles and see what’s been covered in the discussion on them, and have anything new beyond what’s already been said, you are more than welcome to comment in them.
Thank you for the respectful way you’ve engaged here. Not everyone who disagrees with some of my articles does so!
Thanks,
I would be interested in reading what you have written with regards to the diety of Christ. What are the best articles to review?
You could read the articles in this series, to start:
This series deals with the Incarnation of Christ. It is not dealing directly with His deity, but His deity is addressed throughout because the Incarnation can’t really be taught and understood Biblically without understanding His deity. Without His deity and the Incarnation you don’t have Christianity:
I’ve not done a full-scale article on His deity seeking to give a complete teaching on it because it’s been done many times before, and there’s no need to “reinvent the wheel.” I can refer you to this page (which I linked to on the third article in that first series above):
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/trinity-proven-by-logic.html
So, I get the preexistence part. The unique part and how this eternal spirit-son came into the womb of Miriam. So, the part that is quite problematic is the physical aspect of the Messiah. He is prophesied to be the son of David, deriving his genos from David, not the creator. The cultural-Torah abandonment by Yah in his choosing to set an odd precedent in the genealogical norm of Israelite history by choosing not just any Bethulah (virgin) but a virgin who was already under a bridal contract. That also sets a new precedent concerning the laws on adultery, which do not only pertain to sex only but even sexless adultery or cohorting with any other man. The only appeal here can be to a form of “executive privilege” being exercised by God himself, in direct contradiction of his own laws and his approval of already established custom in Israel such as head coverings in Nu 5 and 1 Cor 11. This is a bit too capricious for me. For if Christ Jesus’s genealogy, as descending from the male offspring of David isn’t paramount, then there were plenty of Virgins in Israel for him to choose from to bring Moshiach into the world. It seems that the narrative in Matthew and Luke, 2 of 3 synoptic gospels,serves Gentiles better than the seed of Israel and it’s purpose is to diminish Jesus or Yashua’s Israelite identity and nullifies to alter his purpose of becoming the goal or benchmark of the law or Torah. There is one and only one place where Yah spoke audibly identifying Jesus as his son to a public audience and that was at his baptism. Which is why I take a mid adoptionist position.
Nothing else changes except for the fact that there isn’t any need for an angel to explain things to Yoseph after the fact, When Yoseph was a righteous man and TMH could have been a man and spoke with Yoseph directly especially for the case of such a bizarre narrative as this.
Jesus was exalted and the word (the spirit that became echad with his spirit), who became flesh was restored his glory that he had at the beginning of the world.
I’m not going to respond to everything here, but the idea that the prohibition on adultery or sex-less adultery has anything to do with this is seriously misplaced.
There is no sexless adultery or cohorting with another man. There is almighty God working a miracle in Mary’s womb. A spiritual relationship with the God of all things is not a violation of marriage. A woman is to love her husband and she is to love the Lord her God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength. And that which He does in her life, whether miraculous or not, is not a violation of her marriage. That’s ridiculous. God is not a man.
He did that miracle in a female descendant of David so that the prophecy of Messiah being physically descended from David was fulfilled (genealogy in Luke 3).
He did it in one who was betrothed to a man (Joseph) in the royal line, so that Messiah had the legal claim to being the royal heir, the King of the Jews (Matthew 1). Thus we have the record of the wise men coming in Matthew 2, immediately after that genealogy is recorded, looking for the King of the Jews. Thus, we have the Jews, with all the accusations they made against Jesus, never denying that He was heir to the throne. They would have denied that if they could have.