What Monogenēs Meant as Applied to the Son—According to the Church Fathers
Giles claims that when the church fathers applied the term μονογενής to the Son, they only intended “to speak of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ” and not to affirm that he is “only begotten.” Giles would grant that what makes the Son unique is that he is eternally begotten, but I take him to be saying this was something the fathers stated synthetically and theologically, that is, not analytically inferring “begottenness” as a predicate contained in the word μονογενής itself. I think this is demonstrably untrue. Here is some evidence showing that the church fathers did indeed apply the term to the Son with the understanding that it positively affirms the Son is “only begotten.”
The church fathers often used μονογενής substantivally (or absolutely as they would say) as a name or title of the Son lifted from John 1:14 (“glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father”) but without quoting the verse. This usage suggests they interpreted the word to mean “only begotten.” Otherwise, we would have to translate the substantival use as “the Only One,” which hardly has any significance, or “the Unique One.” This translation problem was noted by the modern translators of Basil’s work, Against Eunomius, Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (The Fathers of the Church [FoC], vol. 122). Giles himself says he wrote to Mark DelCogliano asking him about their decision to render μονογενής as “only begotten.” This was Dr. DelCogliano’s reply:
“I remember when beginning the project we toyed with translating the term as ‘only’ or ‘unique,’ in line with modern biblical translations. This led to what seemed to us odd substantive usages such as ‘Only One,’ but at least it was accurate, we thought. But the more we thought about it, we thought that Basil (as well as others) really understood the term in the sense of ‘only offspring of the Father’—what we here in the states would call an ‘only child’ (see Contra Eunomius 2.20-21). And we thought that this understanding of the term accorded well with the traditional translation ‘Only-Begotten’” (quoted by Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son, p. 145 n124).
This absolute, substantival use occurs about 95 times in Basil’s Against Eunomius. I literally counted each occurrence of “the Only-Begotten” by hand in the recent (2011) English translation by DelCogliano and Radde-Gallwitz. I say “about 95” because I may have missed a few, and a couple of times it was Eunomius who used the term. (Basil quotes Eunomius throughout and refutes him point by point.) I would even go so far as to say “the Only-Begotten” seems to be Basil’s preferred way of referring to the second person of the Trinity. As Basil’s translators pointed out, it would result in a rather odd translation to render all 95 of these as “the Only One.” It seemed to the translators that Basil took the word in the sense “only offspring” or “only child,” and that therefore the best translation was the traditional one, “the Only-Begotten.”
Not only do we have the frequent substantival use, ὁ Μονογενής (“the Only-Begotten”), but the church fathers explicitly asked why the Son is called μονογενής and gave a clear answer.
Athanasius says the Son is called μονογενής “because of his generation from the Father” (μονογενὴς μὲν διὰ τὴν ἐκ πατρὸς γέννησιν). And he immediately adds: “One should say that the attribute of being only-begotten has justly the preference in the instance of the Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father .... The Son is the Father’s ‘Only begotten,’ because He alone is from Him” (Against the Arians 2.62, 64; NPNF2 4.382-83).
Basil said the Son is called μονογενής because he is “the only one begotten” (τὸ μόνος γεγεννῆσθαι) (Against Eunomius 2.21; PG 29.617; FoC 122, p. 161), and repeatedly speaks of “the begetting (or generation) of the Only-Begotten” (Against Eunomius 2.3, 14, 15, 17).
Cyril of Jerusalem said: “This is the reason why He is called μονογενής, because in the dignity of the Godhead, and His generation from the Father, He has no brother” (Catechetical Lectures 11.2; NPNF2 7.64).
Gregory Nazianzen argued that “He is called Only-Begotten, not only because He is the only Son and of the Father alone, and only a Son; but also because the manner of His Sonship is peculiar to Himself and not shared by bodies ... on account of His passionless generation” (Fourth Theological Oration §20; NPNF2 7.316 modified).
The church fathers explicitly ask why the Son is called μονογενής. The answer they gave was not because he is “unique” or “the only one of his kind,” but because he alone is begotten of the Father. They agree that the term μονογενής tells us something about his “generation” or “begetting” (his γέννησις).
Additionally, if the church fathers thought μονογενής meant “unique” without any notion of begetting, they could not have used the term as a peculiar name for the Son when they wanted to identify the Son as a particular person within the Trinity distinct from the other two persons. But they did use the term this way. For the church fathers, the term μονογενής is a descriptor applicable only to the Son and not to any other person of the Trinity, because only the Son is begotten. But it would be applicable to all three persons of the Trinity if they thought the term only meant “unique.” The title “unique,” paradoxically, says nothing unique to distinguish the Son from the Father or the Spirit. But the descriptor “only begotten” does. They made this argument in particular when they discussed the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. They repeatedly said the Holy Spirit, though derived from the Father, is not “only begotten,” because that is the distinguishing property of the Son. Here are some quotes to that effect:
Gregory Nazianzen: “Nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is one” (οὔτε τὸ πνεῦμα υἱὸς ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἷς γὰρ ὁ μονογενής) (Fifth Theological Oration §9; NPNF2 7.320). In other words, just because the Spirit is “of God” doesn’t make him God’s Son, for there is only one who is “the Only-Begotten.”
Gregory of Nyssa said the Holy Spirit’s “most peculiar characteristic is that He is neither of those things which we contemplate in the Father and the Son respectively. He exists simply, neither as ungenerate (μήτε ἀγεννήτως), nor as only-begotten (μήτε μονογενῶς): this it is that constitutes His chief peculiarity. Joined to the Father by His uncreatedness, He is disjoined from Him again by not being ‘Father.’ United to the Son by the bond of uncreatedness, and of deriving His existence from the Supreme, He is parted again from Him by the characteristic of not subsisting as only-begotten from the Father (μήτε μονογενῶς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστῆναι)” (Against Eunomius 1.22; NPNF2 5.61 modified).
Basil of Caesarea is succinct and direct: “Nor do we speak of the Holy Ghost as begotten (γεννητόν), for by the tradition of faith we have been taught one Only-Begotten (ἕνα Μονογενῆ)” (Letter 125; NPNF2 8.195).
Try rendering μονογενής as “only” or “unique” in any of these statements, and the argument would fall apart. Consider especially the last quote, the one by Basil: “Nor do we speak of the Holy Ghost as begotten, for by the tradition of faith we have been taught one Only One (or one Unique One).” Such a translation makes nonsense of Basil’s argument and would in fact be heretical, because the Son is not the only one or the only unique one (the Father and the Spirit are unique as well). But if we render Μονογενής as “Only Begotten,” it makes perfect sense. Basil is saying we do not speak of the Holy Spirit as “begotten” because there is only one “Only Begotten,” the Son. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is begotten. Only the Son is begotten.
Hi Lee, when I read your first blog and discovered you had tracked down most of the uses of monogenes in the Greek fathers with the help of the TLG data base I was most impressed. I had not done this. I thought to myself this is going to be a high level exchange. I am going to be extended and may need to revise or even change my mind on some points. To my disappointment, blogs 2 and 3 have left me cold. I am not sure what we are debating, often you get me completely wrong and so far all the quotes from the Fathers you have given me do not support what you are saying - in my humble opinion. At this point I do not think I am engaged in serious scholarship.
I employ your readers to read my book on the eternal generation of the Son. It has sold very well, it has had almost entirely positive reviews by competent scholars some of whom are complementarians and it has led to an almost universal reaffirmation by evangelicals of this hugely important and poorly understood doctrine that was widely rejected by evangelicals as having no biblical support, most notably by Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware. Because of the huge pressure my book imposed on these two men – their brothers accused them of heresy for rejecting what the Creeds and confessions teach - they capitulated and in front of several hundred evangelical scholars at the Evangelical Theological Society annual conference in San Antonia November 2016. They both stood up and repented of their error. After leading the opposition to this doctrine and thereby contradicting the Nicene creed and all the Reformation confessions, they said they now accepted this doctrine. Praise God.
They said they had repented because now that they had discovered with the help of Lee Irons that monogenes meant “only begotten” they could now see a biblical basis for holding this doctrine. I could only smile. I had read all the sources and I knew the word monogenes , however translated into English, is not the biblical basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. If you read my book, chapter 3, pages 62-90 you will see what is. So far Lee you have offered not one word to refute this my most basic and primary point, namely that the word monogenes, however translated into English, is not in the Greek fathers (or any other theologian as far as I can see) the basis for their doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. I still think the PRIMARY meaning of mongenes is unique, one of a kind. Nevertheless, I agree that to be a monogenes son you need to be begotten and the Greek church fathers repeatedly argue that that the Son is rightly called monogenes because he is eternally begotten. What this means is it is possible and acceptable to give a theological interpretation of this word in the Greek fathers as “only begotten”. If this is only what we are disputing, how best to translate monogenes, we are spending a huge amount of time on a micky mouse issue where we are not far apart.
Readers of you blogs could easily think you are attacking my book, The Eternal Generation of the Son. You see some great flaw in my work. From what you have told me in personal emails this is not the case. I gather you learnt a lot from reading it, you are convinced by the overall argument of my book, you now accept the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son and can see its importance and you agree that the divine persons are not differentiated by differing authority as your personal friends, Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, argue. Am I right in saying this?
Now to blog 3.
First, let me say what I find really unhelpful is that that you quote from the church fathers time and time again to prove something about the word monogenes and you give the English translation “only begotten”, not the Greek. To make a rational argument you need to give only the Greek and then argue what it means in this context. You cannot presuppose it means “only begotten” when this is the very question in dispute.
Paragraph one I find very opaque and confusing. I take it you main point is in the last sentence. You want to correct me, arguing that “the church fathers did indeed apply the term [monogenes] to the Son with the understanding that it positively affirms the Son is “only begotten”. How many times need I say it? In arguing that the Son is eternally begotten (gennao) of the Father the Greek theologians constantly make the point that what makes him monogenes is that he alone is eternally begotten. What mistake have I made? I just cannot see what you are on about.
The next paragraph is equally if not more confusing and confused. You simply make the assertion “This usage suggests they interpreted the word to mean “only begotten”. First of all they did not “interpret” the word. They were Greek speakers. They were not using the King James Bible! “Interpret” Greek words is what we do as English speakers. Why could not the word monogenes used absolutely carried the meaning for them “the unique one”, as we might expect from the etymology and common usage of the word? You say nothing that in any substantial way excludes this very reasonable interpretation/translation of this word. And let’s be honest, very often how best to translate a word in one language into another is contentious.
Then you quote Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, not from some source you have found, but from my book. I had many emails back and forth with these two classical scholars when I was writing my book. I found them very helpful and sympathetic. As the quote makes clear they found deciding how best to translate in to English monogenes, used of the Son, not self-evident, and for the reasons cited decided on “only begotten”. I do not agree this i the best translation but I quoted them to make the point clear that I accepted how best to translate monogenes into English is difficult. If you or others can make a good case for this translation its not a big issue for me and in no way undermines anything I say in my book.
Yes, Basil very frequently speaks of the Son as the monogenes. And yes, I agree with you the monogenes is Basil’s preferred way to speak of the second person of the Trinity. You however fudge you conclusion by using the English translation of this word “only begotten” in your quote from Basil. Basil certainly calls the Son many times the monogenes but what he means by this is the question. You assert it means “the only begotten”; I reply, I am not convinced. Every one of the uses in Basil I looked at, the note of uniqueness seemed to me to be to the fore.
Indeed, you seem to me to admit this yourself. You say DelCogliano and Rade-Gallwitz take these uses in Basil in the mean something like “the only offspring” [of the Father] or “only child” [of the Father]. Since Basil is speaking of the Son you are agreeing Basil is speaking of Jesus as “the only Son or offspring” of the Father. His uniqueness is what is being stressed.
Now you quote from Athanasius. To think clearly and rationally we must first remove the English term “only-begotten” from your quote – once again. Athanasius concludes, “the Son is called monogenes because he alone is from him”. He “alone”, he uniquely, only he is “from him”. Surely in this sentence monogenes speaks about what is unique about the Son, NOT that he is begotten, although this of course is true.
Basil’s point likewise is that the Son is rightly called monogenes because he alone is begotten of the Father. This is what makes him unique.
The texts make the very point you dispute. Can’t you see this?
Cyril of Jerusalem again makes the same point, the Son is monogenes because he has no brother. He is the ONLY Son of the Father.
I would need to work on the quote from Gregory of Nazianzen. What he is saying in his first sentence is not at all clear to me on first reading. However I note in his second sentence he says the Son is called monogenes because “he alone is begotten of the Father” Amen, Amen. He is the unique or only Son by eternal generation.
Now the paragraph beginning “Additionally”. Let me say again, I have never argued that monogenes “excludes any notion of begetting”. You are arguing against a straw man of your own imagination.
Of course the church fathers do not call the Spirit monogenes because the Bible does not. I could even add that they do not call him Christ! This observation would be just as irrelevant to our discussion.
Your digression into trinitarian theology that follows in your quotes from the two Gregories and Basil indicates you are not fully conversant with their understanding of the Trinity. For them, what eternally and indelibly differentiates the Father and the Son is that the Father alone is unbegotten God and the Son alone is begotten God. And what distinguishes the Spirit from the Father and the Son is that he alone proceeds from the Father or the Father and the Son. You simply assert that to translate the use of monogenes in any of the three quotes you give makes no sense. To me it makes great sense; the differing origination of the three divine persons makes each one of them unique.
Kevin Giles
2-1-2-17
Posted by: Kevin Giles | 01/02/2017 at 10:13 PM