-
Depending upon one's translation of choice; Jesus Christ is described in John
1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, and John 3:18, as the only-begotten god and/or
the only-begotten son of God. Either way, the koiné Greek word for "only
begotten" is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a combination of two
words.
The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a single channel rather
than two or four in surround sound stereo. Mono is very common; e.g.
monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome,
monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.
The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which
Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls
or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing. In other words:
monogenes refers to one biological gene set rather than many.
Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a parent's sole
biological child in the New Testament. If a parent has two or three biological
children, none of them qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a
monogenes child, the child has to be an only child. Obviously then, an
adopted child can never be monogenes in the home because it wouldn't be
the home's biological child. Examples of monogenes children are located at
Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.
OBJECTION: I would submit that the monogenes is also used in the context
of "one of a kind" viz: a child who is unequalled when compared to others.
For example, it is found in Hebrew 11:17 of Isaac being Abraham's "only
begotten son." But Isaac's older brother Ishmael was also Abraham's
biological son.
RESPONSE: The objector's objection isn't a translation, rather, it's an
interpretation.
To start with, three New Testament examples of monogenes are located at
Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38, and in all three examples it refers not
to a special child, but to a parent's sole biological child.
Next I'll go to the Old Testament.
The common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the
laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate
because he was Abraham's firstborn son. However, there was a clause in the
laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's in-slavery
biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all
claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.
The trick is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the
clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.
†. Gen 21:14 . . So Abraham got up early in the morning and took bread
and a skin water bottle and gave it to Hagar, setting it upon her shoulder,
and the child, and then dismissed her.
The phrase "dismissed her" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a word used of divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves. In
other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no, she was
set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking because if
Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael would have
retained his legal status as Abraham's eldest biological son.
Later, when Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac; God referred to him as
the patriarch's only son.
†. Gen 22:2 . .Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and
go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of
the mountains of which I will tell you.
†. Gen 22:12 . . Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do
nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not
withheld your son, your only son, from Me.
Technically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons
(Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was
dissolved when he emancipated Ishmael's mother; and I sincerely believe
that is precisely how Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, and Heb 11:17 ought to be
understood.
But aside from all that: if the Word of John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, and
John 3:18 is really and truly God's biological offspring (so to speak) then the
Watch Tower Society has a serious problem with its Christology; because if
God were to reproduce He would give birth to God; viz: more of Himself;
just was when humans reproduce they give birth to humans; viz: more of
themselves.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
