Since a large number of Baptists have evidently forsaken the whole council of God in favor of just one verse, John 3:16, I have been thinking about this verse a lot. My thoughts today have centered on translations. Some translations refer to Jesus as God’s “only begotten son” and others refer to Him as God’s “one and only son.” This is a big difference. I shall now analyze.
Before I get technical, I just want to let you know that I am not merely picking on the King James (Kent). I am picking on the KJV (Kent), the NASB (Jeremy), the ASV (me), the ESV (Haze), and writing in favor of the NIV (…and pretty much everybody will hate me for this last one).
The Greek word in question is monogenēs. We all agree that it is a compound word, but we disagree as to which words are compounded. We agree that “mono-“ means only. However, “-genēs” gives us a bit of a problem. Historically, it’s been accepted as a compound of “gennaō,” the word for bear/beget. This is why so many translations render it as “only begotten.”
However, it is possible that “-genēs” comes from the word “genea” (meaning race, kind, generation, age, family, etc.). D.A. Carson takes this view (that the word comes from “genea”), along with the Moulton and Milligan Greek lexicon (you will find such a note in the Amplified Bible). To take this as the proper root of the word, it would be more correct to render that section of the verse as “his unique Son” or “his one and only Son.”
However, we cannot rely completely on the root words, or otherwise we’d think a pineapple was an apple that grew on pine trees. How does the rest of Scripture deal with Christ’s relationship to the Father/the word “monogenēs?”
First off, if it meant “only begotten,” it would be spelled differently. The tell-tale sign of “gennaō” is the double-n. “Only begotten” should be “monogennētos” and not “monogenēs.” Do you see the double-n? The more important question is this: Do you see a double-n in the word John actually recorded in verse 3:16? No. It’s not there.
Second, the word cannot always mean “only begotten.” (Actually, this really makes me think that the word just plain doesn’t mean “only begotten.”) Go to Hebrews 11:17. Here, Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s “only begotten” (KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB). The point is this: the same word used to describe Jesus in John 3:16 (monogenēs) is used here to describe Isaac. But Isaac can’t be Abraham’s only begotten, because Abraham also begat Ishmael.
What about Hebrews 1:5? The Father is referenced to having said to the Son “Today I have begotten you.” Well, this refers to the eternal relationship between the Father, who is eternally begetting, and the Son, who is eternally begotten.
In conclusion, I think that while it is theologically accurate to refer to Jesus as the “only begotten” of the Father, I think it betrays the text to translate John 3:16 as such. KJV was working with the best at the time and it was at least an honest mistake. The translators of the NKJV, ASV, and NASB should have known better but translated it “begotten” anyways, which means they were probably selling out. ESV translated it as “only” which successfully avoided the issue altogether (though, “only “ is an acceptable translation…it’s just ambiguous), and the NIV translated it as “one and only.” In the most unlikeliest of events, in all its problems, I think the NIV is best at this one verse. Is there anybody left that’s not mad at me right now?
