I’ve been perusing the gospel of John recently to test a theory. Trinitarians turn to John’s gospel almost exclusively to support the orthodox doctrine that Jesus is both God and man. The number of verses in John used to prove Jesus’ Deity are really not all that substantial. I suggest that there are actually many more verses in John that disprove the doctrine of the trinity! Further, those texts purported to prove the trinity, when properly understood, falter miserably. John 1:18 is an example.
John 1:18 (NASB)18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in thebosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 1:18 (HCSB)18 No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son— the One who is at the Father’s side— He has revealed Him.
The different translations of this verse are the result of opposing Greek manuscripts. The HCSB, along with the KJV and others use the “textus receptus” (the received text) which reads “only begotten Son”. On the other hand, the translators of the NASB (and others - notably the NIV and ESV) favor a different, older, Greek document which has “only begotten God”. The oldest texts should typically be regarded as the most reliable, but in this case there is more to consider. For starters, how about the use of simple sense and reason.
If the documents are different it can only mean that somewhere along the way one was changed. It’s difficult to comprehend that a person, no matter how well-meaning, could wilfully alter the text of Scripture. But we know as a matter of historical fact that Biblical texts have at times been tampered with for various reasons. Most instances of textual corruption are the result of simple error in transmission and these are easily detected. Some changes however, reveal blatant partiality for a particular view. In this case the question is: was John 1:18 changed from “only begotten son” to “only begotten God” or the other way around? Since there are no older documents to compare, we can’t make that determination with absolute certainty. However, I propose that the easiest way to determine an acceptable answer is the use of sense and reason.
The word begotten in Greek is genos. It means “descendant, family”, and is from the root ginomai meaning “to be made - to come into existence”. If God, by definition, is immortal, uncreated, then how does “begotten God” make any sense? How can one be both begotten and immortal - created, and uncreated? One of the early Church fathers tried to resolve this dilemma by coming up with the term “eternal generation”. The line of reasoning here is that since the Son is eternal as the Father is eternal, the begetting must also be eternal. Wow! Try and wrap your head around that one!! So, God the Son is always being born??
The Athanasian creed declares Jesus to be begotten and not made. Here is another statement that simply makes a muddle out of lanquage! There is no difference between begotten and being made in the context of birth. The Bible is full of genealogical records. We readily understand the meaning when it says so and so begat (fathered) so and so. The begetting brought the child into existence; a baby was made. Why then should genos take on a different meaning when it comes to the birth of Jesus?
Angels are called “sons of God”, the nation of Israel is termed “God’s son”, and Christian believers are also “sons of God”. But Jesus is the unique, one of a kind, only “begotten” Son of God! What makes Him unique is that He was begotten in the womb of a young virgin girl. According to Luke 1:35, the angel of the Lord told Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her and for that reason (therefore), the child being born in her would be called “Son of God”. Did you get that? “For that reason”! Because the Spirit of God came upon Mary, the child “shall be called” the Son of God. That means that Jesus could not have been the ”Son of God” prior to his conception in Mary. Think about it! He is called Son of God because He was begotten - came into existence - by a miracle which God performed in Mary’s womb!
A second point to consider here is the use of the term God. We err when we attach 21st century meaning to a 1st century word. In Jesus day this word had a much wider meaning. When we refer to God in 21st century western culture, we almost always mean the all powerful and supreme creator. This was not the case in the age and culture of Jesus and the apostles. The word god could be used to describe anyone with authority to speak for Yahweh, such as a prophet or judge (John 10:34). In Exodus 4:16 God told Moses he would be “god” to Aaron. And, in 1 Cor 8:5 Paul makes reference to other “gods” and “lords” as secondary and inferior to the God of Christians, who is “The Father”. Additionally, Paul refers to Satan as “the ‘god’ of this present age”. With that understood, if only begotten god is in fact the correct and original reading, then certainly John’s reference to Jesus as “only begotten god” would have been understood in a secondary sense. This means Jesus could be called god because of His derived power and authority, just as in John 20:28 when Thomas confessed of Jesus, “my lord and my god”. There is no need to read into the text that He was God Almighty or an additional person of the Godhead. As God’s true and legitimate representative, he could be called god, and still be begotten!
One last argument in favor of the correct reading of John 1:18 as “only begotten Son”. The phrase in question comes from one Greek word - not just genos but monogenos. Mono means “only, one, unique” - monogenos then is the one and only descendant, unique son, only begotten son. This phrase is used only by John when referring to Jesus and we find it also in John 1:14; John 3:16 and 18, and 1 John 4:9. We do not, however, find any other occurrences of “begotten God” in Scripture, not in John’s gospel, not in any epistle. Nowhere! Not even in the oldest documents.
In my estimation these are compelling arguments that should be taken seriously by all who, like me, have accepted without question, the orthodox view of the trinity and the two natures of Christ. In their book, “The Doctrine of The Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound”, authors Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting perceptively write:
“Part of Christian growth is the willingness to admit we have been deceived, that we have not had sufficient information to make good decisions on Bibleissues.” (page 162)
When I made the leap from the trinitarian aberration to seeing what the Bible clearly teaches about God and His Son, it was, at first, both fearful and unsettling; but that quickly changed as the truth washed away the lies. I don’t profess perfect understanding of everything in the Bible but I know that my faith is stronger today than ever before because I have been enlightened to reality. I encourage and challenge readers to do your own research of this information with an open mind. What makes more sense?
- God became a man but never stopped being God so He could explain Himself to man, subjected Himself to death (even though it’s impossible for God to die), then raised Himself from the dead and made Himself Lord.
- OR - - God begat a man, a chosen Son, whose life revealed God perfectly, who gave himself up to death knowing that His Father would raise Him from death and bestow upon Him the highest honor!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments.