A Confessional Analysis of Key Texts
Introduction:
The doctrine of Christ’s deity lies at the heart of orthodox Christian theology, encapsulating the belief that Christ is both fully divine and co-eternal with the Father. Any undermining of this central doctrine, whether intentional or inadvertent, poses a significant theological threat. Historically, the heresy of Arianism denied the full deity of Christ by teaching that He was a created being—preeminent among creation but not co-equal with the Father. In contemporary times, certain modern Bible translations have introduced subtle changes in key passages that create ambiguities and, in some cases, leave room for Arian interpretations. This article will examine Proverbs 8:22, Micah 5:2, John 1:18, and 1 Timothy 3:16 in the AV (Authorized Version) and compare them to five modern translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, NRSV), as well as the NKJV. Through this examination, we will demonstrate how these textual changes can distort critical doctrines of Christ’s eternal divinity and unique sonship.
Section 1: Proverbs 8:22 – Creation or Possession of Wisdom?
- AV Rendering: “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.”
- NKJV: “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old.”
- NIV: “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old.”
- ESV: “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.”
- NASB: “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old.”
- RSV: “The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.”
- NRSV: “The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.”
In the AV and NKJV, the phrase “possessed me” denotes God’s eternal possession of wisdom, understood by many early Christian interpreters as a typological reference to Christ. This interpretation is supported by the context of Proverbs 8, which personifies wisdom as pre-existing creation. The phrase “before his works of old” reinforces this notion, indicating that wisdom was not part of creation itself but rather an intrinsic aspect of God’s being.
Modern translations such as the RSV and NRSV, however, employ the phrase “created me,” while the NIV uses “brought me forth as the first of his works.” These renderings suggest a starting point in time, implying that wisdom was a created entity. This interpretation poses a significant theological problem: if wisdom was created, then there must have been a point at which God was without wisdom. Such a notion is anathema to classical Christian theology, which affirms that God is eternally wise and unchanging in His attributes.
Additionally, translations like the ESV, which use the phrase “first of his acts of old,” retain the same theological implications as “created.” By suggesting that wisdom (understood as a type of Christ) is the “first” of God’s works or acts, these translations open the door to the Arian assertion that Christ is a created being. The AV’s rendering, in contrast, preserves the idea that wisdom was not created but rather possessed by God eternally, in line with the orthodox view of Christ’s eternal existence.
Section 2: Micah 5:2 – From Ancient Days or From Everlasting?
- AV Rendering: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah… out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
- NKJV: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah… out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.”
- NIV: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah… out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
- ESV: “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah… from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”
- NASB: “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah… from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.”
- RSV: “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah… from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.”
- NRSV: “But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah… from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.”
The AV and NKJV use the phrase “from everlasting” to describe the origins of the ruler who is to come forth from Bethlehem. This phrase is a clear reference to the eternal pre-existence of Christ, emphasizing His divine nature. The terms “from everlasting” convey not merely ancient origin but eternal existence, aligning with other scriptural affirmations of Christ’s deity (e.g., John 1:1).
Modern translations such as the NIV, ESV, RSV, and NRSV opt for phrases like “from ancient times” or “from ancient days.” These renderings, though subtle, weaken the theological assertion of Christ’s eternal pre-existence. Instead of pointing to the eternal nature of the Messiah, these translations imply a temporal beginning, which can be construed as supporting the Arian view that Christ had an origin in time.
Section 3: John 1:18 – Sonship and Deity in Question
- AV Rendering: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
- NKJV: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”
- NIV: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”
- ESV: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”
- NASB: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
- RSV: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.”
- NRSV: “No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.”
The AV and NKJV use “only begotten Son,” which emphasizes both Christ’s unique relationship with the Father and His eternal generation. This phrase is essential for understanding the doctrine of the Trinity, which distinguishes the persons of the Godhead while affirming their unity in essence.
In contrast, many modern translations replace “only begotten Son” with phrases like “only God” (ESV), “one and only Son” (NIV), or “God the only Son” (NRSV). These changes obscure the biblical concept of sonship and create theological ambiguities. By using the term “only God,” the ESV introduces confusion regarding the relational distinction between the Father and the Son. Such ambiguity aligns with Arian and Unitarian interpretations, which deny the eternal and co-equal deity of the Son.
Unitarians, such as George Vance Smith, a prominent contributor to the Revised Version, have historically exploited this ambiguity to support their heretical views. Smith, in his work The Bible and Its Theology, argues that the term “only begotten Son” implies a relational distinction that modern translations obscure. For Smith, the shift to “only God” in texts like John 1:18 aligns with a Unitarian understanding of Christ as subordinate and derivative in His divinity.
Moreover, by removing the term “begotten,” these translations undermine the doctrine of adoption. The New Testament consistently teaches that believers are adopted as sons of God through faith in Christ (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5). However, if Christ is merely “the one and only Son,” as the NIV suggests, this contradicts the notion that believers can also become sons of God through adoption. The traditional rendering of “only begotten Son” preserves both Christ’s unique sonship and the believer’s adoption into God’s family.
Section 4: 1 Timothy 3:16 – Manifest in the Flesh
- AV Rendering: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…”
- NKJV: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh…”
- NIV: “Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh…”
- ESV: “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh…”
- NASB: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh…”
- RSV: “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh…”
- NRSV: “Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh…”
The AV and NKJV unequivocally declare that “God was manifest in the flesh,” affirming the doctrine of the incarnation and the full deity of Christ. In contrast, modern translations like the NIV, ESV, RSV, and NRSV replace “God” with “He,” creating ambiguity regarding the subject of the manifestation. This alteration aligns with Isaac Newton’s argument in Two Notable Corruptions, where he contends that replacing “God” with “He” or “who” weakens the assertion of Christ’s divinity and aligns with Arian interpretations that deny the full deity of Christ.
By using a vague pronoun instead of the clear term “God,” these translations open the door to the Arian claim that Jesus was merely an exalted man who displayed godliness, rather than God incarnate. Arianism denies the orthodox teaching that Christ is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, and these textual changes lend credence to that heretical perspective.
Conclusion
The deviations found in modern translations such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, and NRSV subtly undermine critical doctrines by altering key terms and phrases that assert Christ’s deity and unique sonship. These changes not only create ambiguities but also open the door to Arian interpretations, which deny the co-equal and co-eternal nature of the Son with the Father. The AV and NKJV, by preserving clear and precise language, safeguard these essential doctrines and uphold the historic Christian faith.
Suggested Works for Further Study
For a deeper understanding of these issues, consider reading:
- John Gill: The Doctrine of the Trinity Stated and Vindicated – Gill provides a robust defense of the Trinity against Arian objections.
- John Owen: A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity – Owen offers a detailed analysis of Christ’s divine nature in light of heresies like Arianism.
Final Note
In a recent debate, Mark Ward said it’s a sin to give the AV to children because they’ll have to use a dictionary at times. The real sin is giving to children translations that teach the doctrinal heresy of Arianism.
