John 1:18
(‘No Biblical writer has ever used the expression “begotten God”)
The only BEGOTTEN SON – OR – the only BEGOTTEN GOD? (John 1:18, Emphasis mine)
THE CONTROVERSY regarding which translation is the accurate rendering of John 1:18 has been debated among Trinitarian and non-Trinitarians to this day. The choice is to be made between “the only begotten God OR the only begotten Son.” We are sure it’s the latter. Let us dive into the reasoning and look at the evidence. First and foremost, Apostle John could have never used the word “begotten God,” for God is the creator and the originator of all things; God could never be begotten; this would be a biblical absurdity in itself. God is everlasting to everlasting (Ps.90.2). Secondly, it is common knowledge among the global Christian community that Christ is the “only begotten Son” according to (John 3:16).
Before we continue, let us analyze the arguments by sighting various translations throughout our discussion:
King James Version
“No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
(Reference: John 1:18)
Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550:
“θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο”
As it is written in the KJV and the Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550, from which the King James was translated, there is no trinitarian inference in the verse. However, versions such as the NIV and NASB and among other translations are translated from a different textual family than the King James Version, and they read “God” instead of “Son.” Let us read:
NIV
“No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”
NASB
“No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
“No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
There are different positions among theologians regarding the original text of John 1:18. The NIV and NASB represent theologians who believe that the original text read “ho monogenes theos” ― “the unique, or only begotten God,” while the KJV is representative of theologians who believe that the original text was “ho monogenes huios” ― “the only begotten Son.” While the Greek texts vary, there are good reasons for believing that the original reading is represented in versions such as the KJV. It should be noted that a small number of the early Greek manuscripts of John 1:18 do contain the reading “theos” (“God”), but every one of those texts is of the Alexandrian text type. Practically every other reading of the other textual traditions, including the Western, Byzantine, Caesarean, and secondary Alexandrian texts, reads “huios” (“Son”). The two famous textual scholars Westcott and Hort, known for their defense of the Alexandrian text type, considered John 1:18 one of the few places in the New Testament where it’s INCORRECT.
In addition, a large number of the Church Fathers, such as Theodotus and Tertullian, quoted the verse with “Son!” and not “God.”:
“Many early church writers quote the verse as it stands in the Textus Receptus including Theodotus, Tertullian,… A large number of the Church Fathers, quoted the verse with ‘Son,’ and not ‘God.’ This is especially weighty when one considers that Tertullian argued aggressively for the incarnation and is credited with being the one who developed the concept of ‘one God in three persons.’ If Tertullian had had a text that read ‘God’ in John 1:18, he certainly would have quoted it, but instead he always quoted texts that read ‘Son’.”
(Reference: http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/John_1:18 from 4/11/24, Emphasis Mine)
Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of what “only begotten God” would have meant in the Jewish culture. There is no use of the phrase anywhere else in the Bible. In contrast, the phrase “only begotten Son” is used three other times by the apostle John in (3:16 and 18; 1 John 4:9 – KJV). To a Jew, any reference to a “unique God” would have usually referred to the Father. In addition, the Jews of Apostle John’s day would have had a problem with the term “only begotten God” since Jews are monotheistic in their religious belief.
Former textual critic Bart Ehrman, taught that:
“The reason that the text was changed from ‘Son’ to ‘God’ was to provide ‘extra evidence’ for the existence of the Trinity. By the second century, an intense debate about whether or not Jesus was God raged in Alexandria, Egypt, the place where all the texts that read ‘God’ originated. The stakes were high in these debates, and excommunication, banishment, or worse, could be the lot of the ‘loser.’ Changing a text or two to ‘help’ in a debate was a tactic proven to have occurred. An examination of all the evidence shows that ‘the only begotten son’ is the original reading of John 1:18.”
(Reference: http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/John_1:18 from 4/12/2024, Emphasis Mine)
According to the above statement, it is not surprising that a corrupt change in text from “Son” to “God” occurred. In fact, out of the 5,500 (five thousand and five hundred) Greek manuscripts, we have in possession as of today, only P66, P75, Aleph, Aleph-1, Vaticanus, C, and L contain the corruption of “only begotten God”.:
99.6% the only begotten Son
0.3% an only begotten god
0.1% the only begotten god
(Reference: Family 35 NT,
Emphasis Mine)
That’s 0.4% of the evidence. How do you throw out 99.6% of the evidence to justify the corruption of “begotten God?”
It is evident that the King James
Bible is the correct reading, to both text and meaning. The problem with the Alexandrian text, which reads “the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” implies that there are TWO GODS, and one is inferior to the other. Regardless of how you interpret it, the fact remains that you end up with two Gods. One is the God no one has seen, and the other is the only begotten God who has explained the unseen God.
Furthermore, the Rev Bible Commentary has this to say:
“When totaled, the evidence indicates that the reading, ‘only begotten son’ is more likely original than ‘only begotten God.’ A brief summary of some of the most important arguments is: first, a study of the scope of Scripture reveals that Jesus is not God. That is the plain reading of dozens of verses of Scripture. There is no description of the Trinity anywhere in Scripture, or of the ‘hypostatic union,’ or of the ‘incarnation,’ and the fact is that every single ‘Trinity proof text’ can be explained from the position that Jesus is the Son of God, not God. In contrast, there are dozens of points of logic that cannot be explained if the Trinity is true, such as why, after his resurrection, Jesus spoke of having a ‘God.’ God does not have a God—He is God.”
(Reference: Rev Bible Commentary, John 1:18, Emphasis Mine)
In addition, the expression “only begotten God” does not appear elsewhere in the Bible, whereas in other passages in the book of John, he refers to the “only begotten son.” Let us read:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son …”
(Reference: John 3:16 NKJV, Emphasis Mine)
“…because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
(Reference: John 3:18 NKJV, Emphasis Mine)
“…God has sent His only begotten Son into the world …”
(Reference:1 John 4:9 NKJV, Emphasis Mine)
Thus, for Apostle John to deviate from his position from “Son to God” in this one passage alone would not only be very strange but also spiritually incompatible with the rest of his writings. To comprehend this argument entirely, it is essential to acknowledge that John 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9 all use the term “son” instead of “God,” and there is no textual discordance. The Bible only mentions “only begotten Son” three times (four if we include John 1:18), and the term “begotten God” in John 1:18 would be the sole occurrence of that phrase in the entire Bible, rendering it highly improbable. In fact, according to the internal evidence of scripture, the Apostle John, who wrote his gospel as well as four other books (1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation), never used the expression “begotten God” but only “begotten Son.” Most people don’t even look at the verse itself! The most striking proof lies with the word “begotten!”
Who is in the Bosom of the Father?
It is obvious that it is the Son (huios—Greek). This evidence alone is sufficient to settle the question, providing a clear understanding of the Father-Son relationship!
It is crucial to note that no other New Testament writer used the expression (“begotten God”); in fact, no writer in the entire Bible has ever used the expression “begotten God.”
The King James Bible, being the faithful, accurate translation of John 1:18 from the Textus Receptus, as “begotten Son” is the obvious choice to be favored. Some irresponsible defenders of the modern perversions of this verse in (NIV, NASB, RSV, GNB) insisting in their foolish, insane, and lost battle against the Supreme Book, do not give up their ridiculous statements to justify their stubbornness, even if their arguments are a sign of nothing more than their religious fanaticism against God’s preserved words. Hens, in the words of Apostle Paul:
“speaking about these things as he does in all of his letters. In which there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the untaught and unstable [who have fallen into error] twist and misinterpret, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
(Reference: 2 Peter 3:16 AB, Emphasis Mine)
Thus, the very reason we must compare spiritual things with spiritual to find spiritual truth:
“These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
(Reference: 1 Cor. 2:13 NKJV, Emphasis Mine)
IN CONCLUSION
1
“Out of the 5,500 (five thousand and five hundred) Greek manuscripts, only the ones following bring the corruption of “only begotten God”: P66, P75, Aleph, Aleph-1, Vaticanus, C, and L. Only a total of 7 (seven), out of the 5,500, bring this strange reading. “99.6% reads the only begotten Son,” “0.3% an only begotten god,” and “0.1% the only begotten god.” That’s 0.4% of the evidence. How do you throw out 99.6% of the evidence to justify the corruption of “begotten God?”
2
It is obvious that it is the Son (huios – Greek). This evidence alone is sufficient to settle the question! The relationship with Father-Son is shown in the verse.
3
It is crucial to note that no other New Testament writer used the expression (“begotten God”); in fact, no writer in the entire Bible has ever used the expression “begotten God.”
4
“The text was changed from “Son” to “God” to provide “extra evidence” for the existence of the Trinity.
5
A large number of the Church Fathers, such as Theodotus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Eustathius, Eusebius, Hegemonius, Ambrosiaster, Faustinus, Athanasius, Titus-Bostra, Gregory Nazianzus, Ambrose, Chysostom, Synesius, Jerome, Theodore, Augustine, Proclus, Varimadum, Theodoret, Fulgentius, John-Damascus and Priscillian quoted the verse with “Son” and not “God.” (http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/John_1:18 from 4/11/24)
6
Tertullian supports the position as “Son” when referring to John 1:18. This is especially weighty when one considers that Tertullian argued aggressively for the incarnation and is credited for being the one who developed the concept of “one God in three persons.” If Tertullian had a text that read “God” in John 1:18, he certainly would have quoted it, but instead, he always quoted texts that read “Son!” (http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/
John_1:18 from 4/11/24)
John_1:18 from 4/11/24)
7
The reason that the text was changed from “Son” to “God” was to provide “extra evidence” for the existence of the Trinity. By the second century, an intense debate about whether or not Jesus was God raged in Alexandria, Egypt, the place where all the texts that read “God” originated. The stakes were high in these debates, and excommunication, banishment, or worse, could be the lot of the “loser.” Changing a text or two to “help” in a debate was a tactic proven to have occurred. An examination of all the evidence shows that “the only begotten son” is the original reading of John 1:18. (http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/ John_1:18 from 4/12/2024)
8
God is the creator and the originator of all things, God could never be begotten, this would be a biblical absurdity in itself.
WE KINDLY EXTEND our visitors an invitation to explore the pristine, unadulterated teachings of Christ and His apostles as they were taught in the first-century Church Of Christ:
The Truth about God and Jesus Christ
SUPPORTERS OF THE BELIEF in the divinity of Christ, also known as the Christ-is-God or the God-man doctrine, assert that God exists as a trinity consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although they are three in nature and considered distinct beings, proponents maintain that they form a single God. The concept of the Trinity lacks explicit biblical endorsement; thus, proponents often argue that it represents a profound mystery beyond human comprehension and should be accepted by faith alone.
Reach Out
If you wish to acquire a deeper understanding of our Church Doctrines and have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. We would be delighted to direct you to one of our local resident ministers in your vicinity. Kindly include any queries you may have so that we may forward your inquiry in advance. Thank you.
Please note, we only read and respond to messages that do not contain hate speech or insults...
“Do not let unwholesome [foul, profane, worthless, vulgar] words ever come out of your mouth, but only such speech as is good for building up others, according to the need and the occasion, so that it will be a blessing to those who hear [you speak].”
(Eph. 4:29, Amplified Bible)
“Love endures with patience and serenity, love is kind and thoughtful, and is not jealous or envious; love does not brag and is not proud or arrogant. It is not rude; it is not self-seeking, it is not provoked [nor overly sensitive and easily angered]; it does not take into account a wrong endured.”
(1 Corinthians 13:4-5, Amplified Bible)