The first time the phrase Son of God (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) occurs in John’s Gospel account is in the story when Nathaniel first met Jesus (John 1:47-49 NET).

Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and exclaimed, “Look, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit!”  Nathanael asked him, “How do you know me?”  Jesus replied, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”  Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel!”

Earlier Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”  Nathanael replied, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”  Philip replied, “Come and see.”^[1]  Nathaniel put his prejudice aside and did exactly that.  But it says to me that he already had a preconceived notion that the one Moses and the prophets wrote about, the king of Israel, was also the Son of God.  Even Jesus seemed a bit surprised at how easily Nathaniel believed: Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe?  You will see greater things than these.^[2]

For this is the way God loved the world, the next time there is mention of God’s Son in John’s Gospel began, He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.^[3]  I want to compare the King James Version (KJV), and the New American Standard Bible (NAS) with the New English Translation (NET).

The first thing I noticed was that the KJV and NAS share the phrase only begotten Son (τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ^[4]) where the NET has one and only Son.  The note in the NET explains: “Although this word is often translated ‘only begotten,’ such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means ‘one-of-a-kind’ and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna theou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).”

I am unclear what the term “metaphysical relationship” meant, so I want to repeat what Luke’s Gospel said about Jesus’ ‘one-of-a-kind’ relationship to his Father.  When Mary Jesus’ mother was visited by the angel Gabriel and told of his birth, she asked, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”  The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon (ἐπελεύσεται, a form of ἐπέρχομαι)^[5] you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow (ἐπισκιάσει, a form of ἐπισκιάζω)^[6] you.  Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God (υἱὸς θεοῦ).^[7]

While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, Matthew wrote, but before they came together (συνελθεῖν, a form of συνέρχομαι),^[8] she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.  Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately.  When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived (γεννηθὲν, a form of γεννάω)^[9] in her is from the Holy Spirit.”^[10]

The next thing I noticed was that the KJV has no quotation marks.  The translators proposed no theory of who was speaking in John 3:16-21.  The NAS translators on the other hand used quotation marks to indicate their belief that Jesus was still speaking to Nicodemus.  The NET translators ended Jesus’ quotation marks at verse 15, indicating their belief that John was speaking.

Here I noticed that the KJV and NET have condemn where the NAS has judge for the Greek word κρίνῃ.^[11]  For clarity I’ll work through the NET definitions of κρίνῃ.  God did not send his Son into the world 1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, or choose the world; God did not send his Son into the world 2) to approve, esteem, or to prefer the world; God did not send his Son into the world 3) to be of the world’s opinion, or to deem, or think like the world; God did not send his Son into the world 4) to determine, resolve, or decree the world; God did not send his Son into the world 5) to judge the world or 5a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong 5a1) or to summon the world to trial or 5b) to pronounce judgment upon, or to subject the world to censure or 5b1) to act the part of judge or arbiter in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others; God did not send his Son into the world 6) to rule, or govern the world or 6a) to preside over it with the power of giving judicial decisions; God did not send his Son into the world 7) to contend together, as a warrior or combatant with the world; or 7a) to dispute with it or 7b1) have suit at law with the world.

Ordinarily I soar over this rugged terrain at about 30,000 feet.  I already know what it means.  I know most people die and go to hell.  This was Jesus, or John, certainly the Holy Spirit, vindicating God of the destruction of so many souls:  God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world.  Let God be proven true, Paul wrote, and every human being shown up as a liar, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in your words and will prevail when you are judged.”^[12]  But as I sit here now, a relativist, gazing up at this majestic rocky cliff face of absolute negation, I begin to wonder, “Is that all it means?  Is it really just God saving face?  What did God send his Son into the world to do?”

God sent his Son into the world that the world should be saved through him.  Here I noticed that the KJV and NAS have might be where the NET had should be saved.  The Greek is ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾿ αὐτοῦ: ἀλλ᾿ (but) ἵνα (that) σωθῇ (to save) ὁ (the) κόσμος (world) δι᾿ (through) αὐτοῦ (him).  I know I’m no Greek scholar, but I don’t find any might be or should be in this text.  Is one or the other of them really contained within the word ending?  Is it a theological interpretation?  Is it just to make the English flow better?  I admit I don’t know, but I’m willing to keep on searching.

[Addendum: July 20, 2019] The Greek verb σωθῇ (should be saved) is in the subjunctive mood.  According to the “Greek Verbs (Shorter Definitions)” at ntgreek.org: “The subjunctive mood indicates probability or objective possibility. The action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances.  It is oftentimes used in conditional statements (i.e. ‘If…then…’ clauses) or in purpose clauses.  However if the subjunctive mood is used in a purpose or result clause, then the action should not be thought of as a possible result, but should be viewed as a definite outcome that will happen as a result of another stated action.”  How one translates σωθῇ here depends then on whether one considers it to be in a “result clause” or not.