John 1:18 Revisited: Father & Son are the one God

samshmn
2 hours ago
17 min read

In the Gospel of John, Jesus emphatically testifies to the Father being the only God and the only true God:

“How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the only God (tou monou theou)?” John 5:44 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God (ton monon alethinon theon), and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” John 17:3 LSB

At the same time, the inspired writer begins his Gospel by describing Christ as the uncreated Word who is fully God in nature, being the Agent that brought the entire creation into existence, and who then became flesh, i.e. a Man:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God (kai theos een ho logos). The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind... The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him... Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. John 1:1-4, 9-10, 14

John 1:1 sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis—“In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

John 1:1 tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός…means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.

John 1:1 tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

John 1:3 tn Or “made”; Grk “came into existence.”

John 1:3 tn Or “made”; Grk “nothing came into existence.”

John 1:3 tc There is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (P^66,75* א* A B Δ al). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (P^75c C D L W^s 050* pc). NA²⁵ placed the phrase in v. 3; NA²⁶ moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a detailed article K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (ho gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included “are almost impossibly clumsy” (St. John, 157): “That which came into being—in it the Word was life”; “That which came into being—in the Word was its life.” The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν (en); (2) he repeats frequently (“nothing was created that has been created”); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.

tn Or “made”; Grk “that has come into existence.”

John 1:4 tn John uses ζωή (zōē) 36 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiōnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.)

sn An allusion to Ps 36:9, which gives significant OT background: “For with you is the fountain of life; In your light we see light.” In later Judaism, Bar 4:2 expresses a similar idea. Life, especially eternal life, will become one of the major themes of John’s Gospel.

John 1:4 tn Or “humanity”; Grk “of men” (but ἄνθρωπος [anthrōpos] is used in a generic sense here, not restricted to males only, thus “mankind,” “humanity”). New English Translation (NET)

As indicated in the above notes, the Evangelist depicts Jesus in the same manner that the OT describes YHWH:

“For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light.” Psalm 36:9 LSB

“Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, ‘I, Yahweh, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,’” Isaiah 44:24 LSB

It is YHWH who is the Source of life and spiritual illumination, and who alone created all things.

Therefore, the only way that Jesus could have created anything and also be described the true light who gives life and illumination is if he is YHWH God who became a human being.

Later, one of Jesus’ disciples will confess the risen Christ to be his Lord and God:

“Thomas replied to him, ‘My Lord and my God (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou)!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the peoplewho have not seen and yet have believed.’” John 20:28-29

John 20:28 tn Grk “answered and said to him.”

John 20:28 sn Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“My Lord and my God has truly risen from the dead”), as predicate nominatives (“You are my Lord and my God”), or as vocatives (“My Lord and my God!”)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and the reader has come full circle from 1:1, where the author had introduced him to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in John 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he” (Grk “I am”). By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to his death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both Lord (κύριος [kurios], used by the LXX to translate Yahweh) and God (θεός [theos], used by the LXX to translate Elohim). NET

Thomas’ confession equates Jesus with YHWH since he alone is the Lord God whom a monotheistic Jew could ever confess and trust in:

“You have seen it, O Yahweh, do not keep silent; O Lord, do not be far from me. Stir up Yourself, and awake to my justice And to my cause, my God and my Lord. Judge me, O Yahweh my God, according to Your righteousness, And do not let them be glad over me.” Psalm 35:22-24 LSB

These statements are more than sufficient in proving that Jesus is fully God to the same extent that the Father is. However, John wrote something else about the Son that is truly astounding:

“No one has ever seen God; God the only Son (monogenes theos), who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.” John 1:18 English Standard Version (ESV)

Here is how various English versions render this text:

“No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him.” Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

“No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father’s side — he has made him known.” Complete Jewish Bible.” (CJB)

“No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.” Contemporary English Version (CEV)

“No one has ever seen God; the only-born God, the One being in the bosom of the Father— that One expounded Him.” Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)

“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

“No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.” New International Version 1984 (NIV)

These next translations are quite intriguing:

“No one has ever seen God. The uniquely existing God, who is close to the Father’s side, has revealed him.” International Standard Version (ISV)

“No one has seen God at any time; the one and only, God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father—that one has made him known.” Lexham English Bible (LEB)

“No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.” ESV 2001

The NET translators provide some pertinent textual data in support of this specific reading:

“No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.”

Footnotes

John 1:18 tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenēs theos, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (ho monogenēs huios, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus ΘΣ or ΥΣ. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C³ Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. P⁷⁵ א¹ 33 have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in P⁶⁶ א* B C* L. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred.

As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (ho ōn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (theos ēn ho logos) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenēs) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

John 1:18 tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).

John 1:18 tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

John 1:18 sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.” NET

Suffice it to say, the majority of current New Testament textual critics believe that the expression monogenes theos is what John originally wrote:

1:18 μονογενὴς θεός (the only Son, himself God) {B}

This is a very famous variation unit. The oldest witnesses read μονογενὴς θεός (‘only-begotten God’; P66 01* 03 04* 019 etc.) or ὁ μονογενὴς θεός (‘the only-begotten God’; P75 012 33 cobo and numerous Christian writers), while most Greek manuscripts have ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (‘the only-begotten Son’; 02 043 037 038 etc.). A few sources read εἰ μὴ ὁ μονογενὴς θεός (‘except the only-begotten God’; 032supp latvl-pt etc.). The full attestation in Greek continuous-text manuscripts is given in TuT John (TS2). While some Latin witnesses appear to support μονογενὴς υἱὸς θεοῦ (‘only-begotten son of God’), this may be an expansion due to translation or assimilation to John 3:18. The most difficult reading is μονογενὴς θεός by itself, both for the lack of the definite article and the unexpected juxtaposition of these terms: elsewhere in the New Testament, μονογενής appears in conjunction with υἱός (John 3:16, 3:18; 1 John 4:9; Luke 7:12, 9:38; cf. Luke 8:42). The phrase ‘only-begotten God’ (or ‘God the only Son’, because μονογενής could itself convey the notion of sonship, as at John 1:14 and Heb. 11:17) would be a bold statement about the divinity of Christ at the beginning of the gospel, otherwise unparalleled. It is much more likely that θεός would be altered to the more common term υἱός. However, given that both were customarily abbreviated as nomina sacra, there remains a slight possibility that, at an early point, ΥϹ (with an overline) might have been misread as ΘϹ. This does not explain the lack of article in the earliest manuscripts: although this might be considered assimilation to John 1:14, this previous use of μονογενής by itself rather supports the shorter reading here. The reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is adopted in the THGNT; the SBLGNT agrees with the UBS text.[*]

Even though UBS6 treats John 1:1–18 as a single unit, the division in manuscripts is less clear and it is advisable not to describe this section as a ‘prologue’.[*] It is also possible to argue that the direct speech of John the Baptist which begins in John 1:15 could extend as far as the end of 1:18 (cf. John 1:19), but the customary practice in translations is to restrict it to 1:15 only. (H. A. G. Houghton, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS6): A Companion to the 6th Edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament; emphasis mine)

And:

John 1:18

anti-adoptionistic corruption: monogenes theos (P⁶⁶ℵ* B C* L pc sy^hmggeo²Or^ptDid Cyr^ptΝΑ²⁷) / ho monogenes theos (P⁷⁵ℵ¹ 33 bo Cl^ptCl^ex ^Thdpt Or^ptEus^ptGrNy Eph)

alternative readings: ho monogenes hyios (A C³ W^s Θ Ψ ƒ^1.13 a aur b c e f ff² vg sy^c.h.pal arm eth geo¹ slav Ir^{lat pt}Cl^ptCl^ex Thd^pt Hipp Or^{lat pt}Eus^ptAth Bas^ptChr Cyr^pt Thret Tert Ambst Hil^ptAmbr^pt Hier Aug) / monogenes hyios theou= (q Ir^{lat pt} Ambr^{pt vid}) / ho monogenes (vg^ms)

The reading theos, with or without the article, has strong support by the best witnesses. On the other hand, the attestation is mainly limited to Alexandrian witnesses, whereas the main rival reading hyios is more widely attested. Ehrman prefers the latter reading on the basis of internal evidence. Firstly, it conforms with Johannine usage; monogenes and hyios are used in conjunction in John 3:16, 18 and 1 John 4:9; and, secondly, monogenes theos is “virtually impossible to understand within a Johannine context.”⁵³ Ehrman suggests that the reading with theos may reflect a harmonization to the context where theos occurs some seven times, hyios never. Under all circumstances, he thinks there was a theological motivation to do so: “The variant was created to support a high Christology in the face of widespread claims . . . that Christ was not God but merely a man, adopted by God.”⁵⁴ One may well question whether it is at all possible to detect an anti-adoptionistic motivation behind a harmonization within a context where the Logos is understood to be God right at the outset (v. 1).

Ehrman goes on to state that the sense of the reading monogenes theos is impossible, suggesting that Jesus is the unique God, since in John, the Father is also God. At the same time, he rejects the alternative interpretation of the adjective monogenes as substantival, standing in apposition with theos, “(the) unique one, God,” since he thinks that the use of an adjective as a substantive, when it precedes a noun of the same gender, number and case, is impossible: “No Greek reader would construe such a construction as a string of substantives, and no Greek writer would create such an inconcinnity.”⁵⁵Apparently, Ehrman is wrong. Daniel Wallace has cited a number of examples of such a construction just from the New Testament (Luke 14:13; 18:11; John 6:70; Acts 2:5; Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; Eph 2:20; 1 Tim 1:9; 1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 2:5).⁵⁶ Admittedly, this construction is syntactically difficult, but, at the same time, that fact in itself speaks in favor of its originality (lectio difficilior potior). It should also be noted that monogenesis used as a substantive four verses earlier in John 1:14.⁵⁷

Furthermore, the variation between monogenes theos and ho monogenes theos is, in my opinion, significant for the overall evaluation of the passage. The only comment Ehrman offers in this regard is that “if external support is considered decisive, the article is probably to be preferred” because “P⁷⁵is generally understood to be the strongest” and “P⁶⁶, which supports the shorter text, is notoriously unreliable when it comes to articles and other short words.”⁵⁸It is true that P⁶⁶ (like P⁷⁵) shows a tendency to omit articles,⁵⁹but in this case the reading of P⁶⁶ is shared by other prominent Alexandrian manuscript witnesses (ℵ* B C* L), so there is a strong reason to believe that there was no article in the exemplar. The anarthrous use of theos is more primitive, and, as the UBS committee observes, “There is no reason why the article should have been deleted, and when hyios supplanted supplanted [sic] theos it would certainly have been added.”⁶⁰ Hence, the reading monogenes theos best explains the rival readings ho monogenes theos and ho monogenes hyios. The latter reading may reflect scribal harmonization to the Johannine collocation monogenes hyios (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). In any case, it seems difficult to detect an anti-adoptionistic motivation on the part of the scribes in a passage that already reflects a high Christology, regardless of what textual decision we make. (Tommy Wasserman, “Misquoting Manuscripts: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Revisited,” in The Making of Christianity, pp. 341-343; emphasis mine)