Acts 8:37 - Believe That Jesus Christ is the Son of God

Acts 8:37 - Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." -- New King James Version

This verse is sometimes given to support the trinity doctrine. As it appears in the King James Version and some other translations, however, we find that "God" is referring to only one person, and Jesus is spoken of as being the "Son" of that one person who is "God." We find nothing at all here (or anywhere else in the Bible) that presents the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as being more than one person. Thus, the trinitarian actually has to create some assumptions that have to be added to, and read into what is stated in order to "see" trinity in the verse. What the trinitarian does is imagine, assume, add to, and read into the scriptures that God (the Supreme Being) begets God (the Supreme Being), just as a human being begets a human being, and thus in some vague manner this is alleged to mean that Acts 8:37 presents Jesus as being the Supreme Being. Actually, when a human being begets a human being, one has two human beings, not one human Being. Thus, if such an idea is applied to God Almighty, it would mean that if God Almighty were to beget God Almighty, one would have two God Almighies. One Supreme Being who gave birth to another Supreme Being would mean that there are two Supreme Beings. The Bible, of course, never says that God Almighty is subject to the reproduction laws God placed upon his terrestrial living creation. 

Related to this, many trinitarians often present some very strong denunications of the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation regarding this verse, because the whole verse is missing from the main text of the New World Translation. 

While we are not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, the claim is often made that New World Translation removes the verse because what is in the verse supports the trinity doctrine. One author states: "The reason this verse is so important is that it speaks to Jesus being God, something that the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny." https://closetojesus.org/2017/03/jehovahs-witnesses-what-about-acts-8-37/ This is odd, since there is clearly nothing at all in that verse (as it appears in the King James Version and many other translations) that presents Jesus as being God. As we pointed out, "God" is presented as only one person, and Jesus is presented as being the "Son" of that one person. While we cannot speak for the Jehovah's Witnesses, we do not see anything in the KJV rendering of the verse that would be in conflict with what they teach. As far as we know, they do, like us, believe that Jesus is the Son of God; this does not mean that Jesus is God of whom he is Son. 

Actually, Acts 8:37 is not missing from the New World Translation, for it does appear in a footnote, which states: "Some later Greek manuscripts and some ancient translations into other languages, with slight variations in wording, add: “Philip said to him: ‘If you believe with all your heart, it is permissible.’ In reply, he said: ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” However, these words do not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and are most likely not part of the original text of Acts.​"

Some make it appear that it is only the New World Translation that does this, and endeavor to make it appear that it is missing from the New World Translation because it conflicts with JW doctrine. In fact, many modern translations do similar to the New World Translation in that the verse is missing from the main text, but is included in a footnote with an explanation that it is missing from the earliest manuscripts. Additionlly, many, if not most, that have the verse in the main text, also include a footnote showing that it is missing from earlier manuscripts. Again, we do not know of anything in the verse that would conflict with the JW doctrine. We know that it certainly does not conflict with our belief that Jesus is the Son of the Most High.

We quoted the verse above from the New King James Version. A footnote is given for this verse, which reads "NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition." Thus, although the NKJV includes in the main text, it also acknowledges that it is missing from earlier manuscripts.

Ellicott states regarding Acts 8:37:

It existed in the time of Irenæus, who quotes it (3:12), but is wanting in all the best MSS., including the Sinaitic, and many versions. The motive for the interpolation lies on the surface. The abruptness of the unanswered question, and the absence of the confession of faith which was required in the Church’s practice on the baptism of every convert, seemed likely to be stumbling-blocks, and the narrative was completed according to the received type of the prevailing order for baptism. Even with the insertion, the shortness of the confession points to a very early stage of liturgical development, as also does the reference to it in Irenæus.

Barnes states:

This verse is missing in a very large number of manuscripts (Mill), and has been rejected by many of the ablest critics. It is also omitted in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions. It is not easy to conceive why it has been omitted in almost all the Greek mss. unless it is spurious. If it was not in the original copy of the Acts, it was probably inserted by some early transcriber, and was deemed so important to the connection, to show that the eunuch was not admitted hastily to baptism, that it was afterward retained. It contains, however, an important truth, elsewhere abundantly taught in the Scriptures, that "faith" is necessary to a proper profession of religion.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states:

The whole of this verse is omitted in the oldest MSS. It probably found its way into the text of those MSS. where it does exist from the margin. Such a margin would be formulated by those who, when the Church had become more extended, and formal professions of faith were the rule before baptism, felt that there was a want of completeness in the narrative unless some such confession were supposed to have been made. Thus the margin became a kind of exposition, and in the end found acceptance in the text.

Vincent simply states:

The best texts omit this verse.

We will add that it is not for us to determine if this verse is actually spurious. It really does not matter one way or the other. 

Related Studies

God Begets God?