Doctrinal Problems with "only-begotten God"

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

It is often stated by many that, since we no longer use the Greek text of the King James Version (Textus Receptus) favoring instead the older Critical Text (as is evident in the Westcott & Hort, United Bible Societies and Nestle Aland Greek texts), that the doctrine of the deity of Christ has not been weakened. But at the same time, advocates of the later texts (such as the Majority/Byzantine and the Received Texts) argue otherwise. Gone are seemingly strong defenses such as 1 Timothy 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh") and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) amongst other references. These advocates are also the ones that view the reading of MONOGENHS QEOS at John 1:18 as dangerous to this ever-weakening doctrine.

 

Bible translator Jay Green (LITV, MKJV, King James 2, King James 3, The Gnostics, The New Version, and the Deity of Christ) rejects the reading and explains of Vaticanus that "in John 1:18 refers to Christ as the `only begotten God.' How can anyone claim that one that is begotten is at the same time essential God, equal in every aspect to God the Father, and to God the Holy Spirit? This makes Christ to be a created Being." (Unholy Hands on the Bible edited by Jay. P. Green, Sr.; Sovereign Grace Publishers; p.12).

Also:

"It would also be possible to render the second reading an 'only begotten god!' emphasizing the quality, and this has appealed to some who see in it a strong affirmation of Christ's deity. HOWEVER, IF CHRIST RECEIVED HIS 'GODHOOD' THROUGH THE BEGETTING PROCESS THEN HE CANNOT BE THE ETERNALLY PRE-EXISTING SECOND PERSON OF THE GODHEAD. Nor is 'only begotten' analogous 'firstborn', referring to priority of position - that would place the Son above the Father. No matter how one looks at it, the UBS [and also Westcott and Hort, Nestle Aland] reading INTRODUCES A SERIOUS ANOMALY." [Emphasis Mine] _What Difference Does it Make_ by Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD.

Both of the above want to blame Gnosticism for this, as they cannot see beyond trinitarianism, but Dr. Pickering adds some interesting comments regarding the translation "but God the Only Son" which he calls "a bad translation of a bad text" and "God the One and Only" which he calls "a pious fraud."

I agree, and I also agree that the better and older reading "only begotten god" is a reading that would be more in line with first century thought, where none would have imagined Jesus as the eternal YHWH.