13. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 31. Note also the
words of the Expositor's Greek New Testament.
The Word is distinguishable from God and yet 6E6; ilv 6 k.oyoc, the Word
was God, of Divine nature; not "a God," which to a Jewish ear would have been
abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article
would have been inserted....
W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 1:684.
14. The reader is directed to the presentation of Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 256-270, and Murray Harris, Jesus as God (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1992), 57-70, for excellent summaries of the scholarly material.
15. Some might include under this category the idea of "a godlike one." However, if
John had wished to do this, he could have used the adjectival 9eto5 in that case.
16. For those who are more refined in their presentation of this argument, and who
wish to see only pre-verbal anarthrous predicates translated consistently in an indefinite form (a god): the context likewise militates against such a translation, for
such an idea would be utterly foreign to John. Those who push this argument need
to remember that the meaning of the word being translated must figure into the
argument as well. What is more, the literature of those who attempt to defend the
translation "a god" often confuses, and blends together, the case for a qualitative
rendering ("the Word was as to His nature God") and also for an indefinite rendering. It should be noted that all arguments for a qualitative rendering are, in fact,
arguments against the rendering "a god," which no more speaks to the qualities
than does the bare rendering "God."
17. F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H.
Revell Company, 1963), 60-61.
18. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 31.
19. Kenneth Wuest, The New Testament: An Expanded Translation (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1956).
20. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 269.
21. It should be noted that when I use the term "divine," I am in no way indicating
an inferior status. That is, "divine" should be taken as a synonym for "deity."
22. We do not enter here into the issue of how to punctuate this particular passage.
Some texts (including the UBS 4th edition Greek New Testament) put a full break
after "nothing was made." This results in the assertion that "what was made in
Him was life." There is not much of a meaningful difference between the two renderings, but I prefer the phrasing used in most translations.
23. From the Greek term SoKEiv meaning "to seem." They taught that Jesus only
seemed to have a physical body.
24. I have addressed this passage in my book The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 198-200, 258-260.
25 Harris, Jesus as God, 88-92, provides a full discussion.
26. The Greek term John uses to describe this revelation of the Father by the Son is
simply beautiful: e~rlyrjaato, a verb that means to "lead out, explain, make
known, reveal." It is closely related to the noun from which we get our word exegete, to make known or reveal the meaning of a passage of Scripture. Jesus "exegetes" the Father, making Him known, explaining Him to His people, and He
does so with such perfection that Jesus can say, "He who has seen Me has seen the
Father" (John 14:9). Jan G. van der Watt noted in the Westminster Theological Journal, 57:2 (Fall 1995),
The use of k,oyos (v. 1 [John 1:1]) as well as e~r)yi uto (v. 18 [John 1:18])
emphasizes Jesus' position as Revealer. Theobald (Im Anfang, 31-32) has
pointed out that both sections (vv. 1-2 [John 1] and 18 [John 1:18]) refer to
Jesus as God, as the one with the Father or at his side, and as the Revealer (k,oyoS
and ei;rlyhaato).
27. Harris notes,
It was not simply the only Son (b govoyevnc uios) who knew and revealed
the Father. It was an only Son (Rovoyev1) who himself possessed deity (eeoc)
and therefore both knew the Father and was qualified to make him known (Harris, Jesus as God, 82).
Extended note on the meaning of µovoyevtjs:
Traditional translations often have a great impact upon theology. This is certainly the case in regard to tovoyevtjs. So imbedded in our thought is the phrase
"only-begotten" as the translation of this word that it is difficult to discuss the term
in its original context so as to arrive at the meaning it carried for those who used
it, especially when we ask what it meant to the apostle John.
In English, "only-begotten" emphasizes the final element of the translation, the
concept of begettal and generation. But the English meaning must, in all cases, be
consonant with the Greek original, and we must take any emphasis from the Greek,
not from the English.
The key element to remember in deriving the meaning of µovoyevtjc is this:
it is a compound term, combining µovoS, meaning "only," with a second term. Often it is assumed that the second term is ycvvd60at/yevv6w, "to give birth, to
beget." But note that this family of terms has two nu's, "vv," rather than the single
v found in govoyevfIq. This indicates that the second term is not yevvda0at but
yiyvec0at/yivoµat, and the noun form, yevoS. G. L. Prestige discusses the differences that arise from these two derivations in God in Patristic Thought (London:
SPCK, 1952), 37-51, 135-141, 151-156.
ykvog means "kind or type," and yivoµat is a verb of being. Hence the
translations "one of a kind," "one and only," "of sole descent." Some scholars see the -yevi1S element as having a minor impact upon the meaning of
the term, and hence see .tovoyEvfIq as a strengthened form of µovos,
thereby translating it "alone," "unique," "incomparable." An example of
this usage from the LXX is found in Psalm 25:16, "Turn to me and be gracious to me, For I am lonely (tovoyevt1S) and afflicted" (NASB).
There are numerous scholarly sources that substantiate the proper meaning of
govoyevtjS. The lexicon of Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based On Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible
Societies, 1988), 591, says:
µovoycvfI;, -k;: pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only
one of the same kind or class-"unique, only." toy t)iOv tOV I.tovoyevfI e&o ev
"he gave his only Son" In 3.16; tov uiov avtou toy µovoyevf arteotaXKeV o
eeOS "God sent his only Son" 1 In 4.9; tov Itovoyevii ttpo6emepev, o tas enay-
yEkiaS aV(X&i dPEVOs, "he who had received the promises presented his only
son" or "... was read to offer his only son" He 11.17. Abraham, of course, did
have another son, Ishamael, and later sons by Keturah, but Isaac was a unique
son in that he was a son born as the result of certain promises made by God.
Accordingly, he could be called a monogenes son, since he was the only one of
his kind.
Newman and Nida, in A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John (New York:
United Bible Societies, 1980, 24) notes:
Only Son is the rendering of all modern translations. There is no doubt regarding the meaning of the Greek word used here (monogenes); it means "only"
and not "only begotten." The meaning "only begotten," which appears in the
Vulgate, has influenced KJV and many other early translations.
The major work of James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary
of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1930, 416-417), likewise gives
this indication:
povoyevtjs is literally "one of a kind," "only," "unique" (unicus), not "onlybegotten," which would be.tovoyevvr)To5 (unigenitus), and is common in the
LXX in this sense.... The emphasis is on the thought that, as the "only" Son
of God, He has no equal and is able fully to reveal the Father.
This is cited with approval by Tenney, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1981, 33) with the additional comment, "God's personal revelation of himself in Christ has no parallel elsewhere, nor has it ever been re peated." George Beasley-Murray, likewise, said in the Word Biblical Commentary
on John (Waco: Word Books, 1987, p. 14),
tovoyevt]S, lit., "the only one of its kind," unique in its yevoq, in the LXX
frequently translates (yahid) ...
Likewise we read in Leon Morris's work, The New International Commentary
on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, 105),
We should not read too much into "only begotten." To English ears this
sounds like a metaphysical relationship, but the Greek term means no more than
"only," "unique" [The footnote at this point reads as follows: It should not be
overlooked that µovoyevt1S is derived from yivoµat not yevvaw ... Etymologically it is not connected with begetting.]
So wide is the witness to this meaning that the standard lexical source, that of
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
edited by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), includes in its definition of the term:
.tovoyevf;, -es, only ... of children: Isaac, Abraham's only son ... Of an
only son ... -Also "unique" (in kind), of something that is the only example
of its category...-In Johannine lit., µ is used only of Jesus. The tongs. only,
unique, may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M, RSV, et al.;
DMoody JBL 72, '53, 213-19; FCGrant, ATR 36, '54, 284-87).
Finally, Murray Harris, in Jesus as God, 87, said,
This leads us to conclude that povoyevi q denotes "the only member of a
kin or kind." Applied to Jesus as the Son of God, it will mean that he is without
spiritual siblings and without equals. He is "sole-born" and "peer-less." No one
else can lay claim to the title Son of God in the sense in which it applies to Christ.
CHAPTER FIVE
1. Nature, then, and function are two different things. Human beings share the same
type of nature, but we have many different functions. This is the difference between
making an ontological statement about what something or someone is and making
an economical statement about what something or someone does.
2. Such a phrase is, I realize, a misnomer. Eternity is timeless existence, hence, to
speak of eternity past is only to speak of the timeless existence of God that, from
our perspective in time, "preceded" us.
3. I note in passing that some Christian theologians have identified Michael as the
preincarnate Son. However, they are not in the same class as the Witnesses, for
they likewise confirm the deity of Christ. Hence, for those Christians who identify
Jesus as Michael, they are, in effect, saying that Michael is a theophany, an appearance of God in some physical form, while the Witnesses are instead denying
the deity of Christ and making Him a mere creature.
4. Some have gone to great lengths in the vain attempt to get around this plain truth.
Some have said that here Thomas is directing his words not to Jesus but to God,
in a sudden outburst of praise. Yet, the text clearly shows that these words were spoken to Jesus, not to anyone else. See the discussion in Murray Harris, Jesus as
God (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 105-129.
5. Attempts by Stafford in Jehovah's Witnesses Defended (Huntington Beach, Calif.:
Elihu Books, 1998), 202-206 (Stafford mainly follows David D. Schuman's unpublished work, Did the Apostle Thomas Call Jesus "God" at John 20:28?), to obscure such a plain passage are circular at best. Stafford and others point to the fact
that Thomas uses the nominative forms xuptos and Oeo; rather than the vocative
forms (the vocative case being the case of direct address). However, as A. T. Robertson pointed out, this is hardly relevant. In his A Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934),
465-466, Robertson points out uses of the nominative in the place of the vocative
(such as Revelation 4:11, Ai to; &t, o xuptoS xai o Oeos rlµwv, "Worthy are You,
O Lord our God-", where both "Lord" and "God" are identical in form to John
20:28, and yet no one would argue that God himself is not being directly addressed), and says of our passage:
In Jo. 20:28 Thomas addresses Jesus as o xuptos µ0-U xat o 06; µov, the
vocative like those above. Yet, strange to say, Winer calls this exclamation rather
than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas was satisfied as
to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him after the resurrection. Dr. E. A.
Abbott follows suit also in an extended argument to show that KUPSE 6 OF-6g is
the LXX way of addressing God, not o Kt)ptoq xat o Begs. But after he had
written he appends a note top. 95 to the effect that "this is not quite satisfactory.
For xiii. 13, 4WVeitE µe o St&CtaxaXos K61 o xuptoc, and Rev. 4:11-ought to
have been mentioned above." This is a manly retraction, and he adds: "John
may have used it here exceptionally." Leave out "exceptionally" and the conclusion is just.
Therefore, we have examples of the use of the nominative used for the vocative
in John (John 13:13 and Revelation 4:11). Therefore, there can only be one reason
why the plain, obvious meaning of this passage is denied, and that reason comes
out plainly in Stafford's comments. While admitting that Jesus can be called "Lord
and God," he limits this to a mere representative position, focuses not upon the
passage but upon John 20:17 (see comments in text), and concludes, "What is
certain about John 20:28 is that Thomas' words are in no way an affirmation of
anything agreeable to Trinitarianism, for Thomas had no concept of a consubstantial Trinity." This merely begs the question while ignoring the impact of the
words of Thomas.
6. Another element of the argument is that if Jesus says the Father is the "God" of
the disciples, then He himself could not likewise be their God, as Thomas would
confess. Yet, this again assumes what it is meant to prove: unitarianism, the idea
that both the Father and the Son could not, simultaneously, be "God" to the disciples.
7. Stafford, 205.
8. For discussions of this passage and the various translational issues involved, see C.
E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
in The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 11:464- 470; Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1983), II:920-921; Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans in The
New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996), 565-568.