Section 4: John 1:18 – The Son vs. “God”
John 1:18 is a crucial verse in the New Testament that directly addresses the identity of Christ. It traditionally reads, “the only begotten Son,” emphasizing the unique and eternal Sonship of Christ. However, in many modern translations, this phrase is altered to “the only begotten God” or “the one and only Son,” shifting both the language and the theological implications. This section will explore how these changes impact the understanding of Christ’s nature and how they inadvertently support Arian interpretations that undermine His eternal Sonship and deity.
A. “Only Begotten Son” vs. “Only Begotten God”
In the King James Version (KJV), John 1:18 reads, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” This traditional rendering highlights Christ’s unique Sonship and relationship with the Father, reinforcing the doctrine of the Trinity and the co-eternity of the Father and the Son. By referring to Christ as the “only begotten Son,” the KJV affirms that Christ shares in the Father’s essence without implying creation or inferiority.
In contrast, many modern translations, such as the NASB and NIV, read “the only begotten God” or simply “the one and only Son.” The phrase “only begotten God” is a departure from the traditional text and has significant theological consequences. By introducing the phrase “only begotten God,” modern translations create ambiguity regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son. This wording has historically been utilized by Arian theologians, who argued that Christ, as the “only begotten God,” was a created being, subordinate to the Father.
B. The Use of “Only Begotten God” in Arian and Unitarian Arguments
The phrase “only begotten God” has been a focal point for Arian and Unitarian arguments that deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. Arian theology posits that Christ, though divine, was created by the Father and therefore not co-eternal with Him. By interpreting Christ as the “only begotten God,” Arians argued that Jesus, while unique, was not of the same eternal essence as the Father. Similarly, Unitarian theologians have historically favored the term “only begotten God” to support their belief in a non-Trinitarian view of Christ.
Quotations from historical Arians and Unitarians show how they leveraged this rendering to bolster their theological position. For instance, Unitarians argued that the phrase “only begotten God” implies a distinct and separate divine being, rather than an eternally begotten Son who shares in the Father’s nature. This interpretation allows for a hierarchy within the Godhead, where Christ is seen as subordinate—a view that orthodox Christianity has consistently rejected. By adopting the phrase “only begotten God,” modern translations unwittingly lend support to interpretations that undermine traditional Christology.
C. The Issue of “Only Begotten” vs. “One and Only” or “Only Son”
In addition to the shift from “Son” to “God,” another significant change in John 1:18 is the replacement of “only begotten” with “one and only” or “only Son” in many modern translations. The term “only begotten” (Greek: monogenes) has historically conveyed Christ’s unique Sonship while allowing for the concept of believers’ adoption as children of God. In other words, “only begotten” emphasizes Christ’s distinct nature as the Son of God, while also upholding the doctrine that believers can become sons and daughters of God through adoption.
However, modern translations that use “one and only” or “only Son” imply an exclusivity that denies the possibility of believers being adopted as children of God. This wording limits God’s sons to Jesus alone, thereby excluding any who would come to God through adoption. In traditional Christian doctrine, believers are “adopted” into the family of God (e.g., Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5), becoming sons and daughters in a relational, though not ontological, sense. The term “only begotten” preserves this balance, affirming that Christ is uniquely the Son of God by nature while still allowing for believers’ adoption as God’s children.
By contrast, the terms “one and only” or “only Son” alter this theological dynamic, suggesting that no one else can be considered a child of God in any sense. This shift not only diminishes the doctrine of adoption but also subtly aligns with Arian thinking by suggesting an exclusive, solitary status for Christ that does not accommodate believers’ relationship to God. In this way, the translation choices surrounding “only begotten” impact both the doctrine of Christ’s unique Sonship and the believers’ adoption into God’s family.
D. Mark Ward’s Alignment with Arian-Leaning Interpretations
By supporting modern translations that favor the critical text’s “only begotten God” and “only Son” language, Mark Ward and others inadvertently align with interpretations that have historically supported Arian and Unitarian theology. While Ward may not endorse Arianism explicitly, his advocacy for these translations introduces theological ambiguities that undermine traditional Christology. The use of “only begotten God” rather than “only begotten Son” shifts the focus away from Christ’s eternal Sonship, opening the door to interpretations that view Him as subordinate or distinct in essence from the Father.
Additionally, the replacement of “only begotten” with “one and only” or “only Son” affects the understanding of believers’ adoption. By denying the concept of adoption, this wording limits the relational aspect of God’s fatherhood and Christ’s unique role as the Son who enables others to become children of God. In this way, Ward’s support of these translations not only weakens the doctrinal basis for Christ’s co-eternity with the Father but also diminishes the believer’s relationship with God as sons and daughters through adoption.
E. The Theological Significance of Preserving “Only Begotten Son”
Preserving the phrase “only begotten Son” is essential for upholding orthodox Christology and the doctrine of adoption. “Only begotten” maintains the unique and eternal relationship between Christ and the Father, affirming that Christ is of the same essence as the Father, eternally begotten and not created. At the same time, it allows for the theological understanding that believers can be adopted into God’s family, becoming children of God through faith in Christ.
The traditional wording in John 1:18, as preserved in the KJV and other translations based on the Textus Receptus, safeguards these doctrines. By contrast, modern translations that adopt “only begotten God” or “only Son” risk aligning with Arian interpretations that deny the eternal Sonship of Christ and limit believers’ relational status with God. Mark Ward’s endorsement of these translations, even if unintended, contributes to a theological drift that compromises essential aspects of the Christian faith.
Conclusion of Section 4
In conclusion, John 1:18’s rendering as “the only begotten Son” is foundational to understanding Christ’s unique Sonship and the believer’s relationship to God. The traditional wording affirms Christ’s eternal nature and allows for the doctrine of adoption, in which believers become sons and daughters of God. However, modern translations that favor “only begotten God” or “one and only Son” introduce theological ambiguities that align with Arian and Unitarian views, diminishing both Christ’s eternal relationship with the Father and the doctrine of adoption. By supporting these translations, Mark Ward and others risk promoting a perspective that diverges from orthodox Christianity, emphasizing the importance of preserving traditional renderings to safeguard foundational doctrines.
Section 5: 1 Timothy 3:16 – “God Manifest in the Flesh” or Not?
One of the most significant passages in the New Testament affirming the deity of Christ is 1 Timothy 3:16, where Paul proclaims that “God was manifest in the flesh.” This verse has long been a cornerstone for upholding Christ’s divine nature, clearly stating that God Himself took on human form. However, modern translations frequently render this verse differently, substituting “He was manifested in the flesh” for “God was manifest in the flesh.” This seemingly minor change has major theological implications, altering the explicit affirmation of Christ’s deity and aligning with interpretations that can, intentionally or not, diminish the central Christian doctrine of the incarnation.
A. Traditional Rendering: “God Was Manifest in the Flesh”
In the King James Version (KJV), 1 Timothy 3:16 reads, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” This language unequivocally declares that God Himself became flesh, directly supporting the doctrine of the incarnation. By identifying Jesus Christ as “God manifest in the flesh,” this verse affirms that Christ was not merely a human being or a lesser divine figure but fully God, sharing the same essence as the Father.
The phrase “God was manifest in the flesh” is foundational to orthodox Christology. It encapsulates the mystery of the incarnation, the belief that God took on human nature without ceasing to be divine. This formulation has been a cornerstone for defending the deity of Christ against heresies that deny His divine status. Throughout church history, theologians have appealed to this verse to assert that Jesus Christ is truly God, not a created being or subordinate to the Father in essence. The traditional wording therefore preserves a clear and unambiguous affirmation of Christ’s divine identity.
B. Modern Translations: “He Was Manifested in the Flesh”
In contrast, many modern translations, such as the NIV, ESV, and NASB, render this verse as “He was manifested in the flesh” rather than “God was manifest in the flesh.” This alteration stems from differences in the underlying Greek manuscripts, where some early texts have the pronoun “He” (hos) rather than “God” (theos). Proponents of the critical text argue that “He” is more likely the original reading, based on manuscript evidence. However, this change introduces a degree of ambiguity that is absent in the traditional rendering.
The phrase “He was manifested in the flesh” lacks the explicit identification of Christ as God. While it may still imply divinity, the wording is not as direct, leaving room for interpretations that do not affirm Christ’s deity as clearly as the traditional text. This subtle shift aligns more closely with interpretations that can view Christ as a created being or a figure distinct from God in essence. Without the explicit statement “God was manifest in the flesh,” this rendering opens the door to understandings of Christ that fall short of full Trinitarian doctrine.
C. The Theological Implications of “God” vs. “He”
The distinction between “God” and “He” in 1 Timothy 3:16 is not merely a matter of pronoun preference; it is a fundamental difference with significant theological implications. The traditional reading (“God was manifest in the flesh”) leaves no doubt about the divine identity of Christ. It asserts that Jesus is God incarnate, an essential truth that underpins the doctrine of the incarnation and the belief in the unity of the Father and the Son within the Godhead. This statement is vital for the understanding that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was of infinite value, as it was the act of God Himself.
By contrast, the rendering “He was manifested in the flesh” introduces ambiguity. Who is “He”? Although the context may suggest Christ, the absence of the word “God” weakens the verse’s theological clarity, making it less explicit in its affirmation of Christ’s divinity. This ambiguity aligns more closely with Arian interpretations, which hold that Christ, though divine, is not equal to God the Father. By removing the clear identification of Christ as God, modern translations unintentionally support interpretations that diminish Christ’s deity, leaving room for the idea that He might be a created or lesser being.
D. Historical Use of “He Was Manifested” in Heretical Interpretations
Throughout church history, various heretical groups have capitalized on ambiguous wording to support unorthodox views of Christ. The Arian controversy in the early church centered on whether Christ was of the same essence as the Father or a created being. Arian theologians argued that Christ, though divine, was subordinate to the Father and not fully equal in essence. By interpreting ambiguous passages in a way that suggested Christ’s inferiority, they laid the groundwork for a theological perspective that diminished Christ’s full divinity.
The rendering “He was manifested in the flesh” lacks the explicit declaration needed to refute Arian claims. Unitarians and other groups that deny the Trinity have similarly exploited ambiguous language to argue that Jesus was merely a prophet or an exalted human rather than God incarnate. The lack of a direct affirmation of Christ as God in 1 Timothy 3:16 weakens the verse’s use as a defense against such views. By endorsing modern translations that favor this rendering, Mark Ward and others may unintentionally support interpretations that align with these unorthodox perspectives.
E. Mark Ward’s Alignment with Ambiguous Renderings
By advocating for modern translations that render 1 Timothy 3:16 as “He was manifested in the flesh,” Mark Ward and others contribute to a theological ambiguity that undermines the traditional understanding of Christ’s divine nature. While Ward may argue that this rendering reflects textual fidelity, the implications of this choice cannot be ignored. By supporting translations that remove the clear identification of Christ as “God,” he aligns with a perspective that diminishes the clarity of scriptural testimony to Christ’s deity.
The endorsement of ambiguous renderings weakens the foundation for defending orthodox doctrines, particularly when dealing with heretical interpretations that deny Christ’s full divinity. Though Ward may not intend to support Arian or Unitarian views, his acceptance of these modern translations introduces theological ambiguities that weaken the church’s ability to proclaim Christ’s true nature as both fully God and fully man. This choice has ramifications that extend beyond textual accuracy to the very heart of Christian doctrine.
F. The Importance of Preserving “God Manifest in the Flesh”
The phrase “God was manifest in the flesh” is more than a textual choice; it is a declaration of one of Christianity’s central doctrines. Preserving this wording is essential to maintaining a clear and unambiguous affirmation of Christ’s deity. By identifying Jesus as God incarnate, the traditional rendering upholds the doctrine of the Trinity and reinforces the belief that salvation was accomplished through the work of God Himself. This phrase leaves no room for interpretations that diminish Christ’s divine nature or suggest that He is anything less than fully God.
The shift from “God” to “He” in 1 Timothy 3:16 exemplifies how modern translations can introduce ambiguity that threatens doctrinal clarity. The traditional wording, as found in the KJV and based on the Textus Receptus, safeguards the doctrine of the incarnation, affirming that God took on human form to redeem humanity. By supporting translations that retain “God was manifest in the flesh,” proponents of traditional texts preserve a vital theological truth that has been foundational to the church’s understanding of Christ’s nature.
Conclusion of Section 5
In conclusion, the rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16 as “God was manifest in the flesh” is essential for a clear affirmation of Christ’s deity. The traditional wording leaves no doubt about Jesus’s divine identity, supporting the doctrine of the incarnation and defending against heretical interpretations that would view Christ as a created being or a lesser divine figure. In contrast, modern translations that render this verse as “He was manifested in the flesh” introduce ambiguity that aligns with Arian and Unitarian interpretations, diminishing the clarity of Christ’s divinity. By endorsing these translations, Mark Ward and others contribute to a theological shift that weakens the scriptural foundation for the doctrine of Christ’s deity, underscoring the importance of preserving traditional renderings in passages of such doctrinal significance.
