Transcript of a published teaching by David K. Bernard, transcribed from YouTube. An attributed primary source — not Acts 2:38 Life doctrine text.
Summary · Transcript · Scripture Index · Download transcript (.txt)
Summary
Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.
Two Questions: Which Text? and How Translated?
- The question posed: in his book The Oneness of God, he points out that the Bible never says God the Son — yet a few modern translations seem to approach it in this verse: the ESV has 'No one has ever seen God. God the only son, who is at the father's side; he has made him known,' and these translations are based on a particular rendering found in some Greek manuscripts. For those of us who are not textual scholars: can you explain how some Greek manuscripts come to read this verse differently, and is the King James version's rendering — 'the only begotten son' — the better translation of this verse?
- There are two issues: first, what does the text actually say in the original Greek of the Gospel of John? And second, how do you translate that? The root problem is a matter of textual criticism — studying to find out what's the original text (the subject of another podcast in this series). The Old Testament we have very few actual ancient manuscripts of, but they were produced with great care by scribes, so we have a pretty high degree of confidence in them. The New Testament we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts or parts of the New Testament — which sounds great, but many of them were copied privately, copied hurriedly, and so there were many scribal errors. In one particular passage there might be a thousand copies; what's the chance, even with pretty good care, hand copying a whole book, that there could be one mistake? Pretty inevitable. Compare them all and you're going to find differences — most of them pretty minor. Textual criticism is the science of trying to figure out which is original.
Scriptures: John 1:18
The Two Readings of the Verse
- He has right there the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament 6 Revised Edition, from 2025: it gives basically five levels of confidence in which rendering is original — where there's no dispute it just has the text; where there's some dispute but it feels confident, A; fairly confident, B. It puts this rendering as B. The King James version is based on the Greek text that says, in his explanation, only son — often translated 'only begotten son,' but technically it's not begotten, it's unique son: God's one and only son, God's unique son — that would fit 100% with oneness theology.
- But the preferred text of the critical scholars is the other Greek reading, which means God — it could be translated 'only begotten god,' although begotten is not really explicit in the text; really it's 'the unique god' or 'the one and only god.' That too is not God the Son — but it could approach it, because it is saying the one and only God has revealed the Father, and you can kind of imply trinitarian theology in there.
- So the first question: which text is original? Obviously we shouldn't just choose the rendering based on theology; we should choose it based on the textual evidence. But when the textual evidence is mixed, one of the questions is: which sounds more authentically like what a first century Christian writer would say? Then theology does kind of come in the back door. He would tend to think the rendering we find with the King James is probably, on textual grounds, considering the whole context of the first century, more likely.
Even the Other Reading Is Not 'God the Son'
- But let's just say for argument that the other rendering is better. You still have the second question: how do you translate it? Literally it might say 'the unique god,' or 'the only god who is at the father's side' — so is the Father not God? It's still not a slam dunk for the trinity. Even among the translations that take this rendering: his copy of the ESV says 'the only God, who is at the father's side'; the NIV, 'the one and only son, who is himself God'; the NLT, 'the unique one, who is himself God' — and a note in the NLT, 'the one and only son.' No one actually puts God the Son; they put the only God along with the Father. You still have to think of theological interpretation — and he would be comfortable even with some of these translations, because he could explain them very easily in a oneness context.
- Here's the larger context: 'No one has seen God at any time' — and that is stated after the incarnation. What does that mean? It must mean God's Spirit: John is explaining you can't see the invisible God — Jewish believers would be very comfortable with that. On the traditional reading: no one has seen God at any time, but the only begotten son has revealed him — that fits very well with oneness theology. Take the alternate rendering in the NLT's translation: 'the unique one, who is himself God, has revealed the Father' — that would be fine too, because what you would be saying is: no one has seen God, you can't say you've seen the Father, but there is a unique person who actually is God himself, manifested in the flesh, and he has revealed the invisible Father. Still very compatible with oneness theology.
- So his first answer is: the traditional text may very well be the original text — in which case we have absolutely no problem understanding that the Son, who is God manifest in the flesh, reveals the Father. But even with the alternate Greek rendering, what he just said stands true: if you say Jesus Christ — he's the unique son of God; actually, he is God; he reveals the Father — that still fits very well with oneness theology. It does not create a different person called God the Son. He stands by his statement regardless of the Greek rendering here: we don't have any place in the Bible that says God the Son. At most it says the Son, who is God — which is exactly what we would say today.
Scripture index: John 1:18.
Transcript
Well, it's important to understand that the um there are two issues. First is what does the text actually say in the original Greek of the Gospel of John? And then second, how do you translate that? So the the root problem is and this is a matter of textual criticism. That's studying to find out what's the original text.
Uh I think we have another podcast that talks about that or will talk about that. But the challenge with the New Testament particularly um the Old Testament we have very few actual ancient manuscripts but they're they were produced with great care by scribes. So we have a pretty high degree of confidence in them. the New Testament. We have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts or some parts of the New Testament, which sounds great, but what that means is many of them were copied privately, copied hurriedly, and so therefore there were very scribal errors. And so when you have 5,000 manuscripts, even if not all of them would be the whole Bible, but let's say one particular passage there are thousand copies.
Well, what's the chance even with pretty good care hand copying a whole book, what's the chance there could be one mistake? I think pretty um inevitable, right? So, if you had 5,000 uh copies or let's just say in one particular passage you have a thousand copies. Well, if you compare them all, you're going to probably find differences. Most of them are pretty minor. But textual criticism is the science of trying to figure out, okay, which is original. So in this particular case, you have two different renderings. And I, by the way, I happen to have right here uh the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament 6 Revised Edition, which is from 2025.
And so it says the preferred rendering. So it has basically five different levels of confidence in which rendering is original. So it chooses this as its rendering as kind of second. So not first like well I guess there you might say six because if there's no dispute whatsoever, it just has the text. If there's some dispute but it feels confident in one, it will say A. If it if it's um there's some dispute, it's fairly confident it'll put B. Okay. So, it puts this as B. So, the King James version has the Greek, it's based on the Greek text that says monogonas, which is only son.
It's often translate only begotten son, but technically it's not begotten. It's unique son. So God's one and only son or God's u you could say only begotten son or you could say God's unique son that would fit 100% with oneness theology but the preferred text of the critical scholars is monogan theos which means uh theos means god. So that could be translated you could say only begotten god although begotten is not really explicit in the text. So really the unique god or the one and only god. Um and so that too is not god the son but it could approach it because it is saying the one and only god or the new god has revealed the father.
So you could imply if you you can kind of imply trinitarian theology in there. So the first question would be okay which text is original? So if you really feel like that the doctrine of trinity is correct, you might take that more seriously. If you feel like no, that's the doctor of trinity is anacronism, you might consider the other rendering more probable. Now obviously we shouldn't just choose the rendering based on theology. We should choose it based on the textual evidence. But when the textual evidence is mixed, one of the questions you have is which sounds more authentically like a first century Christian writer would say.
Well, then theology does kind of come in the back door. So, I would tend to think that the uh the rendering that we find with the King James is probably on textual grounds considering the whole context of the first century is probably more likely. But let's just say for argument that no, the other rendering is better. Well, you still have the second question. How do you translate it? because literally it might say the unique god or the only god. Um so the only god who is at the father's side. So is the father not god? So it's still not a slam dunk for the trinity.
So even among the translations that try to that take this rendering um now you quoted the ESV I have a version it may have changed but my version of the N ESV says the only God who is at the father's side. Okay the NIV the one and only son who is himself God. The NLT the unique one who is himself God. And then a note of the NLT the one and only son. So even if you accept this uh the the the alternate rendering it it's not a slam dunk. No one actually puts God the son but they do put it in the context the only God along with the father.
So it it you still have to think of theological interpretation. So I would be comfortable even with some of these translations that I could explain very easily in a oneness context. the unique one who is himself God. So it's you could you could say okay God is invisible. So here here's the larger context. No one is seeing God at any time. Now that is stated after the incarnation. So what does that mean? Well it must mean God's spirit. So John is explaining you can't see the invisible God. Jewish believers would be very comfortable with that. No one is seeing God at any time but the only begotten son has revealed him.
So that fits very well with one theology. But let's take the alternate rendering, but let's use the translation the NLT. But the unique one who is himself God has revealed the father. Well, that would be fine because what you would be saying is no one has seen God. So you can't say you've seen the father, but there is a unique person who actually is God himself manifested the flesh. So he has revealed the invisible father. Well, that's still very compatible with oneness theology. Um, so to answer your question, there's no translation that actually says here, God the Son, but there are some translations that lend themselves more to thinking of, well, here's a God alongside the Father whose name is Son, but that would be an interpretation.
So my first answer is the traditional text may very well be the original text in which case uh we have absolutely no problem understanding the son who is God manifest in the flesh reveals the father. But even with the alternate Greek rendering, what I just said stands true. If you say Jesus Christ, he's the unique son of God. Actually, he is God. He reveals the father. That still fits very well with one's theology. It does not create a different person called God the Son. And so I would still stand up by my statement regardless of the Greek rendering here. Uh we don't have any place in the Bible that says God the Son.
But at most it says the Son, who is God, which is exactly what we would say today.
Scripture references as spoken: John 1:18.