In <430118>John 1:18, monogenh<v Qeo>v ? ?the only begotten God? ? must be regarded as the correct reading, and as a plain ascription of absolute Deity to Christ. He is not simply the only revealer of God, but he is himself God revealed.

<430118> John 1:18 ? ?No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.? In this passage, although Tischendorf (8th ed.) has monogenh<v , Westcott and

Hort (with a *BC*L Pesh. Syr.) read monogenh<v Qeo>v , and the Revised Version puts ?the only begotten God? in the margin, though it retains ?the only begotten Son? in the text. Harnack says the reading monogenh<v Qeo>v is ?established beyond contradiction?; see Westcott, Bib. Com, on John, pages 32, 33 . Here then we have a new and unmistakable assertion of the deity of Christ. Meyer says that the apostles actually call Christ God only in <430101>John 1:1 arid 20:28, and that Paul never so recognizes him. But Meyer is able to maintain his position only by calling the doxologies to Christ, in <550418>2 Timothy 4:18, <581321>Hebrews 13:21 and <610318>2 Peter 3:18, post-apostolic. See Thayer, New Testament Lexicon, on Qeo>v , and on monogenh>v .

In <432028>John 20:28, the address of Thomas O ku>rio>v mou kai< oJ qeo>v mou , ?My Lord and my God? since it was unrebuked by Christ, is equivalent to an assertion on his own part of his claim to Deity.

<432028> John 20:28 ? ?Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.? This address cannot be interpreted as a sudden appeal to God in surprise and admiration, without charging the apostle with profanity. Nor can it be considered a mere exhibition of overwrought enthusiasm, since Christ accepted it. Contrast the conduct of Paul and Barnabas when the heathen at Lystra were bringing sacrifice to them as Jupiter and Mercury

( <441411>Acts 14:11-18). The words of Thomas, as addressed directly to Christ and as accepted by Christ, can be regarded only as a just acknowledgment on the part of Thomas that Christ was his Lord and his God. Alford, Commentary, in loco : ?The Socinian view that these words are merely an exclamation is refuted

(1) by the fact that no such explanations were in use among the Jews;

(3) by the impossibility of referring the oJ ku>rio>v mou to another than Jesus: see verse 13;

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment