Summary of "Unique, Only Son, or Only Begotten? Translating Μονογενής" by Charles Lee Irons

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction

Charles Lee Irons' article "Unique, Only Son, or Only Begotten? Translating Μονογενής," published on May 9, 2025 in the Kentwood Institute Bulletin, delves into the complex debate surrounding the translation of the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs) in the New Testament. This term appears nine times across the text, with four instances referring to an “only child” in non-Christological contexts and five in Christological contexts within the Johannine literature (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). The translation of μονογενής in these Christological passages is particularly contentious, as it carries significant theological implications for both Christology and Trinitarian doctrine. Irons explores three primary translation options: (1) the traditional “only begotten,” (2) the revisionist “unique,” and (3) the more recent “only Son.” He argues that “only begotten” is the most appropriate rendering for the Johannine passages, grounding his case in lexical analysis, historical usage by the church fathers, and alignment with the Nicene Creed. Below is a summary of Irons that elaborates on the article’s arguments, context, and implications.

Background and Significance of Μονογενής

The Greek word μονογενής is central to understanding key New Testament passages, particularly those that describe the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son. The term appears in two distinct contexts in the New Testament. In four non-Christological instances (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb 11:17), it describes an “only child” or “only son” in human familial settings, such as a widow’s only son or Jairus’s only daughter. These uses are relatively straightforward, conveying the idea of a sole offspring without siblings, and translations like “only son” or “only child” are widely accepted. However, the five Christological uses in the Gospel of John and 1 John are far more debated, as they describe Jesus as the μονογενής of God. These passages, including the well-known John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son”), are laden with theological weight, influencing doctrines about the nature of Christ and his divine sonship.

The debate over μονογενής is not merely linguistic but deeply theological, as the chosen translation shapes how readers understand the Son’s relationship to the Father. The traditional rendering, “only begotten,” has been challenged by modern scholars who propose “unique” or “only Son” as alternatives. Irons argues that the choice of translation has implications for maintaining continuity with historic Christian orthodoxy, particularly as expressed in the Nicene Creed. His article seeks to defend “only begotten” for the Johannine passages while acknowledging the validity of simpler renderings like “only son” in non-Christological contexts.

The Three Translation Options

The article outlines three main approaches to translating μονογενής in the New Testament, each with its proponents and rationales. The first is the traditional “only begotten,” rooted in the Tyndale and King James Version (KJV) translations. This rendering emphasizes the unique generation of the Son from the Father, suggesting a divine act of begetting that distinguishes Christ from all other beings. Despite its historical prominence, “only begotten” is challenging for modern readers due to the archaic nature of “begotten,” which lacks clear meaning in contemporary English. Nevertheless, it aligns closely with early Christian interpretations and creedal statements.

The second approach, labeled revisionist by Irons, translates μονογενής as “unique.” This view gained traction in the 20th century among evangelical scholars, beginning with B.F. Westcott and followed by others like Dale Moody and Joseph Fitzmyer. Proponents argue that “unique” avoids the theological baggage of “only begotten,” which they see as an imposition of later church dogma. They suggest that μονογενής derives from μόνος (“only”) and γένος (“kind”), meaning “one of a kind” rather than “begotten.” This interpretation was the majority view for much of the 20th century and influenced translations like the Revised Standard Version (RSV).

The third approach, a more recent development, advocates for “only Son.” Scholars like Seumas MacDonald, a Greek and patristics expert, agree with Irons that “unique” is inappropriate for the New Testament’s familial contexts but hesitate to return to “only begotten.” Instead, they propose “only Son” or “siblingless Son” to capture the idea of Jesus as God’s sole offspring without implying a specific act of begetting. This approach seeks to maintain consistency with the non-Christological uses of μονογενής and has been adopted in the English Standard Version’s (ESV) 2025 update for John 1:18. Irons views this as a step forward from “unique” but argues it falls short of fully conveying the theological depth of the Johannine passages.

Lexical Analysis and Polysemy of Μονογενής

A key pillar of Irons’ argument is the polysemous nature of μονογενής, meaning it can carry different senses depending on context. In extra-biblical Greek, the word sometimes means “unique” in non-familial contexts, such as Clement of Rome’s description of the phoenix as “the only one of its species” or Galen’s reference to the liver as a “unique” organ. However, in familial contexts, μονογενής consistently means “only offspring” or “only child,” as seen in Hesiod’s advice to have a “single-born” son to preserve wealth or Diodorus Siculus’s account of an “only child” daughter. Irons emphasizes that all nine New Testament occurrences of μονογενής occur in familial contexts, whether human (Luke, Hebrews) or divine (John, 1 John), making “unique” an unsuitable translation.

Irons also addresses the etymological debate surrounding μονογενής. Revisionists once argued that the word derives from μόνος (“only”) and γένος (“kind”), implying “one of a kind.” However, Irons notes that γéνος can mean “offspring” or “descendant” (e.g., Jesus as “the γéνος of David” in Revelation 22:16), and many Greek words with the -γενής stem relate to birth or procreation, such as εὐγενής (“well-born”) or Ἀριστογένης (“high born”). This evidence suggests that μονογενής can mean “only born” or “only offspring.” Moreover, usage, not etymology, determines meaning, and the familial context of the New Testament supports a translation tied to sonship rather than uniqueness.

Critique of the “Unique” Rendering

Irons systematically critiques the revisionist view that μονογενής means “unique” in the New Testament. He acknowledges that the word can mean “unique” in non-familial extra-biblical contexts, but this does not apply to the New Testament, where every instance involves a parent-child relationship. The revisionist view, championed by Westcott and others, gained prominence by rejecting “only begotten” as a dogmatic overreach influenced by Latin translations like unigenitus. However, Irons argues that this dismissal ignores the familial context and the historical understanding of the term by early Christians.

Seumas MacDonald, a key figure in the debate, supports Irons’ critique of “unique.” In a 2017 blog post and a 2021 article series, MacDonald agrees that “unique” is inappropriate for the New Testament, as it fails to capture the familial sense of an only child. This shift represents a significant departure from the 20th-century scholarly consensus, which often uncritically adopted “unique” in dictionaries and commentaries. Irons views MacDonald’s agreement as a victory, highlighting the growing recognition that “unique” does not fit the New Testament’s usage of μονογενής.

The Case for “Only Begotten” Over “Only Son”

While MacDonald and the ESV’s 2025 update favor “only Son,” Irons presses for a full return to “only begotten” in the Johannine Christological contexts. He acknowledges that “only Son” is an improvement over “unique” and suitable for non-Christological passages, where the idea of begetting is not emphasized. However, he argues that “only begotten” better captures the theological depth of John’s Christological affirmations, particularly in John 1:14 (“the glory as of the only begotten from the Father”) and John 1:18 (“the only begotten God/Son, who is in the bosom of the Father”).

Irons’ defense of “only begotten” rests on three main arguments. First, he cites the testimony of the church fathers, who consistently interpreted μονογενής in Johannine contexts as implying divine begetting. Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165) links μονογενής to the Son being “begotten in a peculiar manner” as the Word and Power of God. Origen (ca. 185–254) argues that John 1:14’s “only begotten from the Father” means the Son is from the Father’s essence, distinguishing him from created beings. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–340) and Basil of Caesarea (ca. 330–379) similarly describe the Son as “the only one begotten” from the Father. In Latin Christianity, Tertullian (ca. 160–220) uses unigenitus to mean “only begotten,” a rendering widespread in the Old Latin translations. These early interpretations, both Greek and Latin, demonstrate a unified understanding of μονογενής as tied to the Son’s unique generation.

Second, Irons emphasizes the role of μονογενής in the Nicene Creed of 325 AD, which states that Jesus Christ is “begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father.” The Creed uses μονογενής to clarify that the Son’s begetting is not creaturely but eternal, from the Father’s essence, supporting the homoousion (“of one substance with the Father”). This scriptural logic, rooted in John 1:14 and 1:18, is obscured by “only Son,” which suggests mere sonship without the notion of divine generation. Irons argues that English translations should align with the Creed to ensure that congregations can connect the Bible’s language to their creedal confessions, avoiding the perception that the Creed relies on a mistranslation.

Third, Irons addresses the linguistic flexibility of μονογενής. While “only child" is sufficient in non-Christological contexts, the Johannine contexts activate the latent notion of begetting inherent in the word. John’s lofty Christological language elevates μονογενής to signify the Son’s unique begetting from the Father’s essence, a meaning the church fathers recognized and developed in Trinitarian theology. By rendering μονογενής as “only begotten,” English Bibles can reflect this historic exegesis, which is not a private interpretation but the consensus of the early church, enshrined in the Nicene Creed.

Response to the ESV 2025 Update

The English Standard Version (ESV), a revision of the RSV for conservative evangelicals, has been influential in English-speaking churches. The RSV (1946) was the first major English Bible to abandon “only begotten” for “only Son” in John 1:14 and 1:18, a move Irons considers misguided. The ESV initially followed suit, rendering John 1:14 as “the only Son from the Father” and John 1:18 as “the only God” (based on the Greek variant μονογενὴς θεός). However, the ESV’s 2025 update revises John 1:18 to “God the only Son,” acknowledging the concept of sonship evoked by μονογενής in the context of “Father.”

Irons welcomes this change as a rejection of the revisionist “unique” rendering and an advance toward recognizing sonship. However, he is disappointed that the ESV stops short of “only begotten.” The ESV Translation Oversight Committee justifies “only Son” by seeking concordance with non-Christological uses (e.g., Luke 7:12; 8:42; Hebrews 11:17), where “only son” is appropriate, and citing ancient translations (e.g., Old Latin, Coptic, Syriac) that use similar renderings. They also imply that “only Son” incorporates the idea of “descent” but not begetting.

Irons counters that concordance with non-Christological uses should not dictate the translation of John’s Christological passages, which operate in a higher register. The Johannine contexts, especially John 1:14 and 1:18, emphasize the Son’s divine origin, which “only begotten” captures more fully. He also suspects hesitancy to use “begotten” due to its archaic sound, but notes that the ESV retains other theological terms like “propitiation” and uses “begotten” in Psalm 2:7 and related New Testament passages (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5). Retaining “begotten” in the Johannine passages would strengthen the connection to Psalm 2:7, a link the church fathers noted.

The ESV’s commitment to historic Christian orthodoxy, as stated in its preface, aligns with the Nicene Creed’s language of “only begotten” and “begotten, not made.” By choosing “only Son,” the 2025 update risks obscuring this connection, potentially leading readers to question the Creed’s scriptural basis. Irons argues that the ESV, as heir to the Tyndale-KJV legacy, should restore “only begotten” in the five Johannine Christological passages to ensure theological clarity and creedal fidelity.

Implications and Conclusion

Irons’ defense of “only begotten” is both a linguistic and theological argument. Lexically, he demonstrates that μονογενής means “only offspring” in familial contexts, supported by extra-biblical usage and the term’s -γενής stem, which often relates to birth. Theologically, he underscores the unanimous interpretation of the church fathers and the Nicene Creed’s reliance on μονογενής to affirm the Son’s eternal generation from the Father’s essence. This creedal logic, grounded in John 1:14 and 1:18, is best preserved by “only begotten,” which ensures that English Bibles reflect the scriptural foundation of Trinitarian orthodoxy.

While “only Son” is a valid rendering for non-Christological contexts and an improvement over “unique,” it does not fully convey the Johannine passages’ emphasis on divine begetting. Irons acknowledges the challenge of “begotten” as an archaic term but argues that its theological significance outweighs concerns about accessibility, especially given the ESV’s precedent of retaining other specialized terms. By advocating for “only begotten,” Irons seeks to restore a translation that honors the Tyndale-KJV tradition, aligns with the Nicene faith, and enables congregations to hear the scriptural echoes in their creedal confessions.

Ultimately, Irons’ article is a call to prioritize theological precision and historical continuity in Bible translation. The choice of “only begotten” for μονογενής in John’s Gospel and 1 John is not merely a matter of linguistic accuracy but a commitment to preserving the church’s confession that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son, eternally begotten of the Father, God of God, and of one substance with the Father.

Detached Note: Comparison List: Christological Translation of John 3:16

In light of Irons' discussion above, below is a chronologically ordered comparison table of English Bible translations of John 3:16, focusing on the rendering of the Greek term μονογενής (monogenēs), which has been variously translated as "only begotten," "only Son," or "one and only Son." This term is pivotal in Christological discussions, as it pertains to the unique relationship between Jesus and God the Father.

c. 1382 Wycliffe Bible (Early Version): "his one begotten son"

c. 1395 Wycliffe Bible (Later Version): "his oon bigeten sone"

1525 Tyndale Bible: "his only sonne"

1535 Coverdale Bible: "his onely sonne"

1568 Bishops' Bible: "his only begotten sonne"

1582 Rheims New Testament: "his only-begotten Sonne"

1611 King James Version (KJV): "his only begotten Son"

1881 English Revised Version (ERV): "his only begotten Son"

1901 American Standard Version (ASV): "his only begotten Son"

1904 Worrell New Testament: "his only begotten Son"

1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV): "his only Son"

1971 New American Standard Bible (NASB): "his only begotten Son"

1978 New International Version (NIV): "his one and only Son"

1982 New King James Version (NKJV): "his only begotten Son"

1989 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): "his only Son"

1995 New American Standard Bible (NASB 1995): "his only begotten Son"

2001 English Standard Version (ESV): "his only Son"

2004 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB): "his One and Only Son"

2011 New International Version (NIV 2011): "his one and only Son"

2015 New Living Translation (NLT): "his one and only Son"

2017 Christian Standard Bible (CSB): "his one and only Son"

2019 Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB): "his only-begotten Son"

2021 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB): "his only begotten Son"

2023 James Quiggle Translation: New Testament (JQTNT): "the Son, the only begotten"

2025 English Standard Version (ESV 2025): "his only Son"

Observations

"Only Begotten Son": This rendering, preserved in earlier translations such as the KJV, ASV, NASB (1971, 1995), and LSB (2021), reflects the traditional and patristically rooted interpretation of μονογενής as denoting the Son’s eternal generation from the Father. Irons affirms this as the most theologically precise translation for the Johannine Christological passages, upholding the exegetical and confessional significance found in the Nicene Creed and the early Church Fathers. An excellent recent private translation, James D. Quiggle's The James Quiggle Translation: New Testament (2023), reads "the Son, the only begotten."
"Only Son": Versions such as the RSV, NRSV, and ESV adopt this rendering, attempting to preserve the singularity of the Son while omitting the language of begetting. Irons views this as a partial step back from the revisionist “unique,” but still insufficient for capturing the theological depth intended in John’s high Christology. The phrase “only Son” connotes filial exclusivity but risks detaching the term from its historical doctrinal associations with eternal generation.
"One and Only Son": Modern translations like the NIV and CSB use this phrasing to emphasize the Son’s uniqueness and exclusivity. Irons critiques this rendering as a product of 20th-century lexical revisionism, shaped by a misreading of μονογενής as deriving from μόνος + γένος ("one of a kind") rather than its more accurate contextual sense of “only offspring.” While clear in contemporary English, this translation obscures the theological claim embedded in the original term.

The divergence in translations stems from the contested meaning of μονογενής, a term that carries both lexical ambiguity and theological weight. Irons demonstrates that in all New Testament usages—each within a familial context—the word signifies an “only offspring” rather than a generic uniqueness. Consequently, the rendering “only begotten Son” best conveys both the lexical precision and doctrinal continuity affirmed by the historic church. Renderings such as “only Son” or “one and only Son,” while more accessible to modern readers, risk diminishing the profound Christological import of the term as articulated in classical Trinitarian theology.

For Further Study

Büchsel, Friedrich. “μονογενής.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, 4:737–41. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.

Bulman, James M. “The Only Begotten Son.” Calvin Theological Journal 16 (1981): 56–79.

Burk, Denny. “Deep in the Weeds on MONOGENES and Eternal Generation.” DennyBurk.com. November 30, 2016. https://www.dennyburk.com/deep-in-the-weeds-on-monogenes-and-eternal-generation/.

Dahms, John V. “The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered.” New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 222–32.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “μονογενής.” In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, 2:439–40. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Fraser, Peter M., et al., eds. Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Vols. 1–5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987–2013.

Hamilton, James M., Jr. “John.” In John–Acts, ESV Expository Commentary. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019.

Harrison, Everett F. “Only Begotten.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd ed., edited by Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell, 618–619. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

Irons, Charles Lee. “A Lexical Defense of the Johannine ‘Only Begotten.’” In Retrieving Eternal Generation, edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain, 98–116. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017.

———. “Unique, Only Son, or Only Begotten? Translating Μονογενής.” Kenwood Institute Bulletin, May 9, 2025. https://bulletin.kenwoodinstitute.org/unique-only-son-or-only-begotten-translating-m%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%AE%CF%82/#f646e967-5164-4c61-a675-e8ebcf94d980.

Kattenbusch, Ferdinand. “Only Begotten.” In A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, edited by James Hastings, 2:281–82. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.

Moody, Dale. “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version.” Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1953): 213–19.

Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930.

Pendrick, Gerard. “Μονογενης.” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 587–600.

Roberts, R. L. “The Rendering ‘Only Begotten’ in John 3:16.” Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973): 2–22.

Warden, Francis Marion. “Μονογενης in the Johannine Literature.” PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1938.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John. Cambridge: Macmillan, 1886.

———. The Gospel according to St. John. New York: Macmillan, 1882.