Further insights into Christ's deity from John 1:18

Today's devotional is on the "only begotten God".  John 1:18 reads: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

I came across this phrase in my study this morning, a phrase I had often overlooked.  Did John really say, "Only begotten God"?  If so, this text is evidence supporting the deity of Christ.  

If we pull out a standard Greek study Bible, we will find the following key phrase: 

"μονογενης θεος"  - very, very literally translated as "only-begotten God".  

NWT renders it "the only-begotten god," implying that the λογος is a secondary deity as they do in John 1:1.  However, this is an inconsistent translation, as θεος without the definite article is translated as "God" and "god" in the same sentence.  You need to either say that no man has seen "a god" at any time (which makes absolutely no sense in the context), or concede the translation "the only-begotten God" referring to God is the sentiment expressed.  

However, a look at other respected translations of the Bible will show a good student that the issue is not so simple.  John 1:18 contains four variations which stem from a textual variant in the Greek.  They are: 

1) ο μονογενης (The Only One)

2) ο μονογενης υιος (the only Son)

3) μονογενης θεος (only God)

4) ο μονογενης θεος (the only God)

So, our second question here is whether "Son" or "God" is the better reading.  

This Apologist's Bible Commentary gives us a scholar's look at that textual variant and explains why the NASB, ESV, and NIV and its variants give the reading as "God", while ASV, CEV, and KJV and its variants use the "Son" reading.  

KJV and its families of translation use Textus Receptus, while NASB uses the Alexandrian text as its primary source.  The majority of scholars, investigating this variant, believe that the more accurate reading of this verse is θεος - "God", not "Son".  

Below is the Apologist's Commentary on why θεος is probably the better reading:  

According to the majority of modern scholars (but by no means all), the external evidence favors monogenês theos as the original text.  However, it must be noted that this reading exists primarily in the Alexandrian text-types.  Textus Receptus - the manuscript tradition behind the KJV and many other Bibles - reads ho monogenês huios.  This reading ranks second in terms of the number of manuscripts containing it, and has a wider distribution among text-types.

Turning to internal evidence, ho monogenês huios is consistent with John's usage elsewhere and fits the immediate context (Son...Father) better than the other variants. Buchsel says monogenês theos "can hardly be credited to J[oh]n, who is distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression" (TDNT, 4:740, note 14).  Monogenês theos is a so-called hapax legomenon - a rare one-time occurrence in the NT.  Textual critics prefer readings that are not unique, unless compelled by external evidence otherwise.  But, as Kurt Aland, has noted even strong internal evidence should never outweigh external evidence (Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 280).  Such is the case with John 1:18.

A final consideration, which many scholars consider decisive, is that it is easier to explain a scribe - either by design or mistake - changingtheos to huios, rather than the other way around.  The reading monogenês theos is the more "difficult" reading, in that it does not occur elsewhere in the NT, and it directly attributes theos to Jesus.  As William Barclay notes, "the more difficult reading is always the reading which is more likely to be the original" (Jesus As They Saw Him, p. 23).  This is because a scribe would generally be inclined to "smooth out" difficult readings, rather than create them.  Even if it were a simple scribal error, the sudden appearance of a "difficult reading" in the manuscript tradition would likely be corrected back to the normative text, whereas a sudden "smoothing" might remain in place and ultimately replace the original.

On balance, monogenês theos is represented in a great number of the earliest MSS, is prominent in the MSS that are considered to contain accurate texts, and is most probably what John actually wrote.

I would point out a final note in support of the θεος reading... 

What has John been talking about from the beginning of the chapter?  

The Word... God... the Light

and the nature of the Word as God and in relationship with God.  

Not once in the preceding text does John talk about Jesus being the Son.  In fact, he doesn't say Jesus was the Son of God until verse 34, when John the Baptist explains who the incarnate λογoς is - the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, the one anointed with the Holy Spirit, and finally the Son of God.  In the beginning of his argument, Jesus is simply the λογος.  

And John has already established that "και θεος ην ο λογος" - "and the Word was God." (For an exegesis of this phrase in Greek, see the entry entitled "Salvation according to John".)  

His logic goes something like this: 

1) The λογος was God, existed in the beginning, and with Him the father made all things.  The λογος was not a creation; because NOTHING created was created without Him.  John is very exact in his language, and if Jesus had been a creation, he would have pointed it out right here.  

2) Establishes divine attributes of the λογος - a) as having life in Himself , and b) as being Light (1:4) . Elsewhere John says that God is light (I Jn 1:5), and that the Father has life in Himself (Jn 5:26).  These are two of the divine attributes that are shared by the λογος.  

3) Being God, the λογος became σαρξ (human flesh, frailty).  By sharing our humanity, He made the invisible God visible to human eyes.  John the Baptist was the first major human witness of His divine glory in human form.  

4) Following from the first three points, this last sentence emphasizes point #3: that Jesus Christ, the λογος, the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, proclaimed God to human beings.  

If you insert "the only-begotten Son" in there, it's still technically true, but you break up the flow of John's incisive logic.  Introducing the idea of Christ as the "Son" seems like a tangent.  

As the commentary pointed out, it makes more sense that a scribe accidentally changed θεος to υιος, rather than the other way around.  

However, the good thing about textual variants is the fact that, in 95% of cases, they do not actually affect our theology.  On my agenda for future posts is to point out the fact that, when the Jews of Jesus' day heard the term "Son of God," there was no doubt in their minds that that "Son" actually WAS God.  The two were synonymous.  

Stay tuned, and meanwhile, have a merry Christmas!