I think to fully appreciate the "image", one needs to understand, without Trinitarian biases, the meaning of monogenes in the classical first century Greek sense of the word.
If anyone is interested, I can offer a
**comprehensive linguistic and contextual study of "monogenes"** which offers a nuanced perspective that goes beyond the typical "unique" vs. "only begotten" debate[1].
**Key findings from the article:**
- **Primary Meaning:** The core argument, supported by a survey of Greek literature (including the Septuagint and New Testament), is that "monogenes" most fundamentally means **"only child" or "only begotten"**—that is, a biological offspring with no siblings. This is its most frequent and basic usage, especially when used in familial contexts[1].
- **Contextual Usage:** While "monogenes" can sometimes mean "unique" or "one of a kind," these are seen as metaphorical extensions of the primary meaning. The article emphasizes that the context in which John uses "monogenes" (always in relation to sonship) points to the literal, familial sense, not just uniqueness[1].
- **Biblical Examples:** The article examines how "monogenes" is used in other New Testament passages (e.g., the widow’s only son in Luke 7:12, Jairus’s daughter in Luke 8:42, Abraham’s son Isaac in Hebrews 11:17) to consistently mean "only child" or "only begotten," not merely "unique"[1].
- **Relevance to Christ:** Applied to Christ, the article argues that John’s use of "monogenes" is best understood as referring to Christ’s **real, literal sonship**—the only one "brought forth" or "begotten" of the Father—rather than a metaphorical or purely functional relationship[1].
- **Implications:** This reading supports the view that the biblical text affirms a true Father-Son relationship, where Christ is the only begotten Son of God in a real, familial sense, not just a unique being or a role[1].
**Conclusion:**
This third perspective, grounded in broad linguistic evidence, contends that "monogenes" in John’s writings most naturally means "only begotten" or "only child," emphasizing a literal and exclusive filial relationship. This challenges both the "unique" interpretation and the abstract, eternal generation model, instead supporting a concrete, scriptural understanding of Christ’s sonship[1].
Citations:
[1] ANOTHER LOOK AT MONOGENES (Gr. μονογενής)
https://theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk/Articles_pdf/Another_look_at_monogenes.pdf
[2] Monogenes - one-of-a-kind and unique ? Or "only begotten"?
Monogenes - one-of-a-kind and unique ? Or "only begotten"?
[3] Monogenes Huios: The Only Begotten Son - As It Reads
Monogenes Huios: The Only Begotten Son - As It Reads
[4] The Nicene Creed: The Only-Begotten Son of God - Clearly Reformed
The Nicene Creed: The Only-Begotten Son of God | Clearly Reformed
[5] Monogenes: 'only begotten' or 'one of a kind'?
https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/monogenes
[6] My Struggling Reflections on Monogenēs, “Only Begotten,” & Eternal Generation
https://christisthecure.org/2022/04...n-monogenes-only-begotten-eternal-generation/
[7] Monogenes: “Only Begotten” or “One of a Kind”?
Monogenes: “Only Begotten” or “One of a Kind”? | Christian Library
[8] "Only Begotten" or "One and Only"
"Only Begotten" or "One and Only"
[9] Begotten or Unique
Begotten or Unique
The above article is by a friend of mine in England, the above summary generated by AI. This is not an article attacking the 3 persons in the Godhead concept, but rather an in depth study of the original language and how the writers of the NT would have written and understood the meaning of "only begotten". As you can see, there are numerous citations which while it does present the Nicene creed in an unorthodox light, does not deny the Father, Son, and Spirit as members of the Godhead, nor does it deny the divinity of Christ, but to the contrary, gives more explicit support and reason for a literal divine Son of God.
Therefore the Nicene concept being so called "mysterious", (not a church, theologian, or philosopher anywhere or at any time being able to logically explain it, is logically inconsistent and contradictory so long as they insist on eternal generation. It's assumption, and not based on scripture. The Son's eternal nature and divinity can be defended without denying His beginning. His nature is eternal in that He came forth from an eternal Father, but His personality is not eternal as He had a beginning. It's like a rock falling from the side of a mountain. The Rock is the same nature as the mountain, but has a beginning... "begotten if you like"...as an individual existence. And like all relationships between fathers and sons, there is a difference in rank, although equal in all other aspects.
It is because of the so called "mysterious" nature of the Trinity doctrine, and the unexplainable concepts within it, that was the catalyst for so many rejecting it, and the resulting controversies and violence associated with the promulgation of the doctrine. Yet the Godhead can be defended without the philosophical reasonings that defy credulity. If we accept monogenes as literally as it was intended, then we have no need of assumption or conjecture, much less compulsion, in order to promote the idea of a Godhead of 3 individual persons.
The holy Spirit however is another matter. His nature and life is not explained in scripture, and we would do well to not guess or assume anything beyond what scripture reveals. Which is very little.
Gen 1:3,16
