In the Berean Literal Bible translation, John 1:18 reads:
"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known." (John 1:18 BLB)
The Catholic Public Domain Version makes a slight but critical change:
"No one ever saw God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he himself has described him." (John 1:18 CPDV)
The Catholic Bible is not alone in rendering "Son" in place of "God”. Many Bible translations do this, but not all. There are many others what prefer “only-begotten God”. But which is correct, and why don’t they all agree? John either wrote "Son" or he wrote "God,” but how can we know which?
The “only-begotten God” reading is found in the oldest and generally most reliable manuscripts — particularly Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75, both dating to around 200 CE, as well as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the two great fourth-century manuscripts. Most modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament therefore favour “only-begotten God.”
The “only-begotten Son” reading is found in later manuscripts and was the dominant reading in the Western church tradition, which is why older translations like the King James Version render it “the only begotten Son.”
Since “only-begotten God” is found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, let’s examine that rendering. But before we do, there is a principle established by none other than Jesus himself which we need to consider and apply.
“At that time Jesus said in response: ‘I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved.’” (Matthew 11:25, 26)
Give this fact, let us read John 1:18 through the eyes of a young child?
Would not a young child notice the difficulty of Jesus being God, given that the verse begins by telling us that no one has ever seen God? Would not a young child conclude that being begotten eliminates the possibility of being God, since God cannot be born of anyone, certainly not of Himself? God is the Father of all things. He is no one's child. So would not a child — one not already indoctrinated with a theology — conclude that Jesus is a god distinct from the God that no one has ever seen? That he is a child god, resting in the bosom of his Father God?
There is nothing cryptic about this verse. It uses language any human can understand, because we all know what it is to be born and what the relationship between a father and son consists of.
But the wise and intellectual want their cryptic doctrine, so they rewrite this passage so they can have their cake and eat it too.
The New International Version reads: "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."
The New Living Translation renders it: "No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us."
Even the Berean Standard Bible succumbs to bias: "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father's side, has made Him known."
As the Berean Literal Bible makes clear, there is nothing in the Greek text to support the addition of "who is himself God."
"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known." (John 1:18 BLB)
So why do Trinitarians add phrases like "the unique one, who is himself God"? Notice — not "who is himself a god," but "God" with a capital G. The answer has to do with their understanding of monotheism, a word not found in Scripture. Monotheism first appears in 1660 in the work of English philosopher Henry More, one of the Cambridge Platonists.
A Cambridge Platonist was a member of a group of 17th-century English philosophers and theologians associated with the University of Cambridge who sought to harmonize Christianity with Platonic philosophy.
Plato was an influential Greek philosopher who lived approximately 400 years before Christ. Why the Word of God was insufficient for those Cambridge philosophers is anybody's guess, but they saw fit to blend pagan Greek philosophy into the teachings of Christ.
So there is the origin of the word monotheism. Trinitarians believe in monotheism — the worship of only one God. Anyone else called a god is, in their view, false. There is only one true God, and that one true God is made up of three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are God.
To say that Jesus is the only-begotten god with a lowercase g is therefore anathema to Trinitarian doctrine. That cannot be, because Jesus is obviously righteous, and there is only one God — ergo, Jesus must be God.
Do you see the flaws in that reasoning? Consider the assumptions being made.
First, there is the idea that being the one true God is about good and evil, truth versus falsehood. But what if it is not about that? What if it is about relativism? Rather than speculate or depend on human philosophers for the definition, let us turn to Scripture. The following quotes are all taken from the Catholic Public Domain Version — I do not want anyone to think I am relying on a non-Trinitarian Bible translation.
"And this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)
"For others are reporting among us of the kind of acceptance we had among you, and how you were converted from idols to God, to the service of the living and true God, and to the expectation of his Son from heaven (whom he raised up from the dead), Jesus, who has rescued us from the approaching wrath." (1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10)
"We know that we are of God, and that the entire world is established in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God has arrived, and that he has given us understanding, so that we may know the true God, and so that we may remain in his true Son. This is the true God, and this is Eternal Life." (1 John 5:19, 20)
Did you notice that it is always the Father who is referred to as the only true God — never the Son. This is consistent with Jewish monotheism as expressed here:
"Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is One." (Deuteronomy 6:4 BLB)
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; besides Me there are no gods. I will gird you, though you have not known Me." (Isaiah 45:5 BLB)
Jesus is never called Yehovah, though his name in Hebrew, Yehoshua, or in Aramaic, Yeshua, means "Yehovah saves."
So "true God" does not mean the only God of truth as compared to false gods. It means the only God in the absolute sense of the word. We live in a world filled with relativism. Rarely do we speak in true absolutes. Who is the most intelligent person on earth? That depends on what you mean by intelligence, because a person can be intelligent in one field but useless in another. Who is the most beautiful woman in the world? Again, by what measure are you judging beauty? It’s all relative. But with God Almighty, there is no relativism. We can rightly speak in absolutes.
Is anyone, in any sense of the word, equal to or greater than Yehovah? No. He is the only true God in the absolute sense of the word.
In a relative sense, however, Yeshua can be called a god. This is where Trinitarians fail, because they refuse to acknowledge the Hebrew concept of agency — the Shaliach Principle.
In Hebrew law it was expressed in this maxim:
"A person's agent (shaliach) is as the person himself."
This did not mean the agent was literally identical in being to the sender. It meant:
- The agent carried the full authority of the sender.
- The agent could speak in the sender's name.
- The agent could act on behalf of the sender.
- The agent represented the sender so completely that his words could be treated as the sender's words.
But ontologically, the agent remained distinct and subordinate.
If I obey the agent, I am obeying his sender. If I bow down before the agent, I am bowing down before his sender.
We just read John 17:3, but let us read it again with the knowledge we now have of the Shaliach Principle of Hebrew agency:
"And this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)
Yehovah, the only true God, is the sender, and Yeshua, Jesus Christ, is the one he sent. We worship Yehovah through Yeshua. Monotheism is preserved.
In fact, Trinitarianism breaks the monotheistic rule, because you cannot worship the Father through the Son if the Son is himself God. How can you pray to God through God?
God gave his Son all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). But the Son can do nothing of his own initiative:
"The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." (John 5:19)
That is the perfect description of Hebrew agency. Those verses in no way support the idea of a co-equal person within a Godhead.
So we have established that Jesus is a god — he is divine. But he is not the only true God. That designation rests entirely and eternally with Yehovah, the Father. Jesus, Yeshua, is God's agent, and for all intents and purposes he is God for us, because we obey him as the one God sent.
With a proper understanding of Hebrew agency and of Jesus as a god, we can now examine three proof texts that Trinitarians wrongly assume are slam-dunk proof of their doctrinal position:
Romans 9:5
Titus 2:13
Hebrews 1:8
We will get into those in the next video in this series.
Don't forget to subscribe to the channel if you haven't already, and to like this video to help promote it. Thank you for watching.