Troublesome Topic: ONLY BEGOTTEN

The Greek word for “only begotten” is monogenes. Here I will look at Michael Heiser’s theory about the origin of that Greek word.

The argument given on pg 36 is weak. Heiser says the Greek word monogenes is not from mono + gennao (only beget, only bear), but from mono + genos (one of a kind). He uses this to say that Jesus is unique among the sons of God, but not “only begotten” because there were other sons of God who were also divine.

Against Heiser’s comments, I say this:

The following trusted sources all indicate that monogenes is from mono + gennao and means “only begotten”: Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich (BAG), Liddell and Scott, Moulton, Buchsel in TDNT which is usually called Kittel, Thayer’s (who indicates it usually means “only son with no brethren,” but also says it can mean “single of a kind”). One other source, Helps Word Studies, says it can mean “one-and-only” or “one of a kind”. So what Heiser says is not totally out of the question, but is definitely against the majority of scholars

Gennao and genos are both from the primary verb ginomai which means “to become, to exist, etc”, therefore, neither one of them can be separated very far from the idea of “becoming”. The verb form gennao means “to beget, to bring forth, to give birth, to produce”. The noun “genos” also comes from ginomai and means “offspring, progeny, family, kindred, nation, kind, race”.  There are several options under genos other than “kind”, thus even if the proper compound is mono + genos, it could mean “one offspring, one progeny, one descendant”. To say categorically that monogenes means “one of a kind” is choosing only what you want the outcome to be and ignoring everything else. Heiser chooses the unlikely and questionable rendering because it fits the worldview he is trying to force upon the Bible.

But even “one of a kind” still rules out others like Him. Notwithstanding, Heiser says Jesus was one of many sons of God, but he was special.

The Apostle John’s use of the term “only-begotten” points in the opposite direction from where Heiser takes it. Heiser makes Jesus less powerful and less special, despite his attempts to explain both sides of a coin that cannot agree with itself. In contrast, John uses that term to make Jesus more important and more special.

So on pages 36-37 Heiser refers to Jesus as one of the sons of God, but a unique son of God, then on page 253 he calls Jesus the second visible Yahweh and the divine rider of the clouds, which only can refer to Yahweh in the OT (p 251-252).

By so doing, Heiser causes confusion. How unique is Jesus? Is He God, part of what we call the trinity? Or is he one of the sons of God and a member of the divine council who happens to be a special son and a special member of the council? Which is it. The statements do not agree.

Next go to WHO IS JESUS?