By Ronald R. Day, Sr.
John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. -- World English.
No one has seen God at any time ; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. -- New American Standard.
theon oudeis hewraken pwpote monogenees theos
GOD NO ONE HAS SEEN AT ANY TIME; ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD
2316 3762 3708 4455 3439 2316
ho wn eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos
THE (ONE) BEING INTO THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER THAT (ONE)
3588 1511_1 1519 3588 2859 3588 3962 1565
exeegeesato
EXPLAINED.
1834
Westcott & Hort Interlinear, as obtained from the Bible Students Library DVD:No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares Him. -- Green's Literal Translation.
However, it is possible that John originally wrote the name of his God (Micah 5:4) when expressing whom no one has seen at any time. If so, expressing the Holy Name in English as "Jehovah", it would read: "No one has seen Jehovah at any time."
The
word begotten is usually transliterated as "monogenes". Many
translations seem to ignore the "genes" part of the word monogenes and
seem to focus on the "mono" part, rendering it "The only one." Others
would render the "genes" as "kind", making it "one of a kind."
The
Textus Receptus, representing what is often called the "majority" text has
"only-begotten son," while the earlier manuscripts usually have
"only-begotten god." Some trinitarians prefer the Textus Receptus
rendering, since they would view the Greek word THEOS as meaning the Supreme Being, would maintain that "God" was never begotten.
Others like to point to John 1:18 as an instance where Jesus is called
"God", and claim that it means that Jesus is a person of the Almighty
God.
Many translations render John 1:18 similar to this:
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. -- English Standard Version.
Notice that in the English Standard Version, the Greek word THEOS is rendered twice as God (with a capital "G"). "God" (with a capital "G") usually, in English, means "Supreme Being." Does the above rendering say anything about two persons, both of whom are "God" (the Supreme Being)? No. If one assumes that the Greek word for "GOD" means Supreme Being in both instances, what the above translation actually would be saying is that there are two Supreme Beings, one Supreme Being who is at the side of another Supreme Being, and one Supreme Being who makes known another Supreme Being. The trinitarian has to create many assumptions beyond what is written in order to get their extra-Biblical trinitarian concept to appear to be what John wrote about.
It
should be apparent that if John did refer to Jesus as theos in this
verse, it is not in the same sense as "Theos" that no man has seen. It should be evident that Jesus is not the Supreme Being, the "one God" of whom are all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) It should be evident that Jesus is not "God" who spoke through the prophets of old. (Hebrews 1:1,2) Jehovah, the "one God" of whom are all, is depicted as being the God the Messiah. (Isaiah 61:1,2; Micah 5:4) The default reasoning is that Jesus is not his God, Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Many might apply their "dual nature" assumptions to Jesus in this verse, and claim that it was the man Jesus, not God Jesus, who declared God. This, in effect, would mean that the man Jesus was God Almighty. Should the Greek word THEOS be used of Jesus as a man, or as his
allegedly being God Most High? Applying the assumed "dual nature" theory
to this verse ends up with an apparent self-contradiction, for it would
end up having Jesus as being allegedly God Most High making known the
Most High God, not the human Jesus making known the Most High God, or it would mean that the only-begotten God Jesus did not declare God as stated, but rather that it was the man Jesus who declared God. Such would, in effect, have change what John stated to something like this: "No one has seen God at any time ; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father did not explain God, but the man has explained Him. -- New American Standard."
The most obvious conclusion is that THEOS applied to Jesus does not mean the Most High. Indeed, let us replace the references to God with "the Most
High" in various translations:
New
American Standard: No one has seen [the Most High] at any time; the
only begotten [Most High] who is in the bosom of the [Most High], He has
explained [the Most High].
English
Standard Version: No one has ever seen [the Most High]; the only [Most
High], who is at the [Most High]'s side, he has made [the Most High]
known.
New
Revised Standard Version: No one has ever seen [the Most High]. It is
[the Most High] the only Son, who is close to the [Most High]'s heart,
who has made [the Most High] known.
NET
Version: "No one has ever seen [the Most High]. The only one, himself
[the Most High], who is in closest fellowship with the [the Most High],
has made the Most High known."
In
effect, this would have, not the human Jesus making known the Most
High, but would mean that the alleged Jesus Most High was making known
the Most High; or, it would have the humanity of Jesus to be "God" Most
High, since it was the human Jesus who made God known. The Bible tells, however, that the man, Christ Jesus, was "a little lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:9), thus, during the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7, he certainly was not the Most High.
Assuming that John actually applied THEOS to Jesus in John 1:18, in
order to get the trinity into this verse, what the trinitarian is forced to
do is split the sentence up so as to make it appear to be saying
something different than John actually recorded.
They first have to imagine and assume that God is more than one person and that He is three persons. Then they have to apply such an assumption similar to this: "No one has ever
seen the God [The trinitarian has to imagine and assume that "God" here
means, not all three persons of the alleged trinity, but rather only the
alleged "first person" of the alleged trinity, since "God" is here
equated with the Father of Jesus]. The only one, himself God [The trinitarian would have to imagine and assume that this means, not the
human Jesus, but they imagine, assume and add to the scriptures, that Jesus is more "nature" or being as the same time, both Supreme Being and human being. Then, they would further imagine, assume, add to and read into the scriptures "God" applied to Jesus here is not speaking of Jesus' human "nature", but it is referring to his "God" nature. And then they imagine and assume that "God" here means the
alleged second person of the alleged triune God, but such would require
it to not mean the "human nature" as that term is applied to the
imagined "dual nature" of jesus], who is in closest fellowship with the
Father, has [the trinitarian, in applying the alleged dual nature to Jesus, has
to switch as this point from the alleged trinitarian "God nature" of
Jesus to the alleged human nature of the alleged dual nature of Jesus]
made God known [the trinitarian has to imagine, assume, add to, and read into this last part that it is not speaking of the alleged "God" nature of being the Supreme Being, but rather that it is speaking of Jesus' human nature]." Thus, in mid-sentence, and then out of context of, and
even in contradiction to, what John actually wrote, the alleged "dual
nature" would change in order to satisfy the added-on trinity dogma.
In
reality, Jesus, even in the days of his flesh, could be referred to as
theos in the sense of having received power from the only true Power in
the universe, his Father. (John 17:3) Such an application would be similar to the application of ELOHIM to the man Moses in Exodus 7:1. Jesus was the prophet like Moses
(Acts 3:13-26). Moses also, being a man, was made "a god" -- one of might
-- to Pharoah. (Exodus 7:1) Likewise, Jesus refers to the Sons of the Most High as gods [mighty ones], although they were still flesh. (Psalm 8:2,1,6; John 10:34-36). If Jesus is referred to as THEOS, GOD, MIGHTY ONE, in John 1:18 (rather than "Son" as given in many translations), then it would have to be related while Jesus was in the days of flesh (Hebrews 5:7), when he had a terrestrial glory that is a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), since it was while he was in the days of his flesh that Jesus declared, made known, manifest, his God and Father. It was while he was in the world of mankind that God made through him that Jesus served as "the light of the world." -- John 1:10; 9:5.
Monogenes
Of course, Jesus was the only-begotten mighty one, even before he became flesh, since he was the firstborn of all of God's creatures. (John 1:1,2; 17:3,5; Colossians 1:15) While Jesus temporarily gave up his mighty celestial glory in order to become a human being of flesh. though God's Holy Spirit, Jesus, while in the days of his flesh, still remained mighty, as Moses was made a mighty one to Pharoah.
See:
Studies related to John 1:1Monogenes
The claim is made that the Greek word often transliterated as "monogenes" does not mean "only-begotten", but rather something like "one and only", or "one of a kind".
Regardless
of all the arguments against the idea, genes (Strong's #1085, a form of genea -- Strong's #1080) in monogenes does indicate having been brought
forth. It is not disconnected from the general meaning of being brought forth. A more recent argument some trinitarians present is that monogenes simply means "one of a kind," and yet, genos/genea
means "kind" in reference a race or people who share a common origin or
development, which still does go back to the idea of having been brought forth into
existence. It does not mean that such wee never brought forth into being such a people, and definitely it does not mean that they were never created as individuals. The Greek forms are never used of people or a kind that was
never brought forth into existence, as is claimed for the Son of God. Again, the trinitarian assumptions have to be imagined and presumed upon the word "monogenes," and that for the very purpose of claiming that Jesus was never brought forth into existence, that he has always existed. An
examination of the usage of genos, as well as genea, and other similar forms, all through the
New Testament will demonstrate this.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1085.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/1085.htm
However, since Jesus was with the "one God" of whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6) before the world of mankind was made (John 17:3,5), His God, Jehovah (Micah 5:4), prepared a body of flesh for His Son (Hebrews 10:5), so that His Son, once having proven himself 100% obedient, could offer that body in sacrifice to his God for our sins. -- John 6:51; Luke 22:19,20; 1 Corinthians 11:24,25; Hebrews 9:11,12,20; 10:10; Revelation 5:9.
Having descended from heaven (John 3:13), he could
tell of heavenly things (John 3:12), thus he came to tell about his God, Jehovah (Micah 5:4), who is invisible to humans. (Colossians 1:15 -- "God" refers to one
person, not more than one person) Jesus certainly did NOT, in John 1:18, explain the alleged trinity, as one has claimed; he said nothing at all about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as being three persons. S three-personed
God; having been with his God, and learned from his God, he explained about one person, his God and Father. -- Matthew 11:27; 8:28; John 7:16; 8:14,28,29,38;
12:49 (Deuteronomy 18:15-19); 14:24; 1 John 5:20).
Jesus, however, never even once mentioned that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more than one person, nor did even once present himself as being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. As
we have stated many times elsewhere, the Creator, the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, is revealed as one person from Genesis to Revelation.
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always distinguished from His Son
throughout the Bible. Surely if this is the most important doctrine one needs to accept for salvation (as some claim), then Jesus, in declaring God, would have certainly presented God as being more than one person, but he never did. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Isaiah 61:1,2; John
17:3; Acts 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1.
The
Greek word translated as "God" in reference to Jesus is "Theos." Forms
of "theos" are used in the New Testament to translate forms of the
Hebrew word for "God", that is, "el" (Strongs # 410,430, etc.). However, these words can be used
in a more general way, when used of persons or things other than Jehovah,
denote a special mightiness or power. Thus, Moses was made a god -- a
mighty one -- to Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:1) The angels are mighty ones, not
just in authority, but in their being, and thus are referred to as
"elohim" (a plural form of "el"). (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7) The sons of
the Most High whom to the Logos came are referred to elohim -- gods,
mighty ones. -- Psalm 82:6; John 1:10; 10:34,35.
See the following studies:
Psalm 82:6 – Who Are the Gods?
Psalm 82:6 – Who Are the Gods?
In the Bosom
Actually, the
word "bosom" is being used figuratively in John 1:18. It is not speaking
of a literal, physical "bosom", but it represents the close relationship of Jesus
with his God and Father. John was certainly not saying that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and/or that Jesus is the God and Father of Jesus.
The truth is that Jesus is not only in God, but the followers of Jesus are also "in God":
1 John 4:15 World English
Whoever will confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God.
1 John 4:16 World English
We know and have believed the love which God has in us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
Jesus, in prayer to the "only true God" (John 17:1,3), stated:
John 17:20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for those also who believe in me through their word,
John 17:21 that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us.
The point is that if the fact that Jesus is in God means that Jesus is the only true God, then, to be consistent, we would have to believe that all who believe in Jesus, since they are also "in God", must also be the only true "God". Of course, in reality, neither being figuratively in the bosom of God or in God has anything to do with being God. Such a thought has to be reckoned in the imagination and thought up and read into what Jesus said, and such an assumption would only need to be made if one wishes to use such an assumption to mean that Jesus is God Almighty or a person of God Almighty.
John and the Deity of Jesus
It is claimed that the deity of Jesus is all John wants to show in his Gospel, and evidently from this conclusion, the thought is that in John 1:18, John is showing Jesus' deity when he speaks of the "incarnate Word". While we disagree that all John wanted to show was the diety of Jesus, any scriptural recognition of Jesus' deity does not mean that Jesus is the "one God" from whom are all (1 Corinthian 8:6), the Supreme Being. Jesus is indeed, the only true God’s (John 17:1,3) firstborn, both as son as well as deity, if one defines "deity" in harmony the Hebraic usage of forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated as EL (including forms of ELOHIM). However, while John speaks of Jesus’ deity -- his mightiness -- several times, most of the book of John is not about Jesus’ deity. John never speaks of an "incarnate" Word, as that word is used related to the "incarnation" doctrine. While in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), Jesus was no longer the glorious celestial deity (1 Corinthians 15:40) that he "was" (John 1:1) when he was with the only true God (John 17:1,3) before he became flesh, as can be seen from John 17:5.
See our studies:
The Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"
Nothing in any of this, however, means that Jesus is the only Most High -- Jehovah -- of whom he is the son. — Luke 1:32; John 17:3.
Addendum 2:
Some
have claimed that the Old Testament relates that Moses and others did
see "God". From this, they claim that God that that was seen was not the God the Father, but their idea of "God the Son." The claim, in effect, is that mankind could see "God the Son", but they cannot see "God the Father". The Israelites “saw” God either in vision, by some form of manifestation, or through Jehovah’s angels. The truth is that no human could possibly see the invisible substance of Jehovah and still live.
Yes,
Moses saw the “back” of Jehovah (Exodus 34:20-23); whether this was by
means of vision, or whether it was by means of a physical manifestation,
the Bible does not say. Whatever it means, it would not mean that Jehovah has a visible physical form with a literal physical back that one may see
and a literal physical face that one may not see. It certainly does not mean that Moses saw the invisible back of the invisible God. -- Colossians 1:15
The phrase "no one" in John 1:18 is rendered from the Greek word often transliterated as “oudeis.” The King James Version adds the word "man" and reads "No man has seen God". The
Greek word often transliterated as “oudeis,” like forms of the Greek word often transliterated as “pas” (meaning
‘all’), is always qualified by common evidence and context as to what is
being spoken of. Throughout the New Testament, it is often restricted to the world
of mankind, which does not include the angels, as the angels are spoken
of as seeing God’s face in Matthew 18:10. Nevertheless, this word is
usually not used in the NT with reference to angels in
whatever is being spoken of, except where the angels are especially
spoken of in the context, as in Matthew 24:36.
Thus,
“no one” in John 1:18 refers to “no man”, no one in the world into
which Jesus came. (John 1:10) Indeed, like the King James Version, many other translations render the word
“oudies” as “no man” in John 1:18 (as well as in many other places).Why is God invisible? The scriptures do not give a direct answer to that question, except that it could be said of Him that He dwells in “unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor can see.” (1 Timothy 6:16) Like the angels, and as Jesus now is in his celestial glory (John 17:5; 1 Corinthians 15:40), we cannot see God’s mighty spiritual bodily substance, but this does not rule out that one can see him in a vision, as a manifestation as though he had a physical shape, or through an angel, even as the angels manifested themselves as men, although in reality, they are not men. We can reason from this, however, that the celestial realm is out of reach for mankind, since man, even when complete in his sinless glory (as Adam was before Adam sinned) is still flesh and lower than the celestial plane. — 1 Corinthians 15:39-41; Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7.
*************
No comments:
Post a Comment