The term μονογενής appears five times in the apostle John’s writings—four times in the Gospel of John (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18) and one time in his first epistle (1 Jn 4:9). Until the 20th century, the dominant rendering of the term in English versions has been “only-begotten.” But that common understanding was challenged by a trio of scholars in the late 19th through mid-20th century (B.F. Wescott, Francis Warden, and Dale Moody). Their work led to the RSV changing the KJV’s “only-begotten” to “only” and to the standard lexicon of New Testament Greek (BDAG) accepting the same interpretation.
The new interpretation became widely accepted and virtually uncontested among New Testament scholars—including those of an evangelical persuasion. For example, it is reflected in D. A. Carson’s popular book Exegetical Fallacies and the first edition of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. It has also appeared in numerous other English translations, including most recently the ESV.
The new interpretation has dominated the field for at least 75 years, even though it directly contradicts the Nicene Fathers’ interpretation of μονογενής in the Nicene Creed. In the Creed, μονογενής refers to the eternal generation of the Son of God—a linchpin of Nicene trinitarianism.
Over the last eleven years, Charles Lee Irons has produced a series of essays that have completely undermined the 75-year consensus among New Testament scholars, the first of which was published in 2017 in Retrieving Eternal Generation (ed. Fred Sanders and Scott Swain). Irons’ essays have mainly analyzed the extra-biblical uses of μονογενής and renderings of μονογενής in other languages.
My thesis is that Irons’ challenge to the near consensus among New Testament scholars is correct and corroborated by considerations internal to John’s Gospel and first epistle. Oskar Skarsaune has demonstrated elsewhere that μονογενής serves as a “precising” term in the Creed. I argue in this paper that the term functions in the same way in John’s writings themselves and that the Nicene Father’s are merely following John’s usage. I will show that in every instance that John employs μονογενής, it is to distinguish the Son’s generation from the new birth that believers experience (which John expresses with the verb γεννάω). I will show that μονογενής does not merely mean “only” but denotes “only-begotten.” The Nicene Fathers have proven to be better readers of Greek than modern NT scholars and were correct to view μονογενής as a reference to the Son’s eternal generation. I will also argue that the ESV’s stated justifications for the “only” rendering are inadequate, and the translators should reconsider their decision.